CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF68FE8B1 { height:46.5pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF11CB2AD { height:101.8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB6F8786 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sA1F8089D { height:82.9pt } .sB5A00430 { height:7.2pt } .s782D8614 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:20.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-4.6pt; font-size:8pt } .sE48DE089 { height:74.15pt } .s3290EFE9 { height:111.15pt } .s1B9BCF01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEB39756B { height:55.25pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 14 April 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 68289/14 Torgovyy Dim Germes Oil, TOV against Russia and 10 other applications (see appended table) communicated on 24 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications arise from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation following the latter’s assertion of its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. They concern restrictions on the applicants’ property rights to various assets, including buildings, apartments, and land located across different parts of Crimea. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are detailed in the appended table. In application no.   68289/14 the applicant company complained that the seizure of its properties, ordered in criminal proceedings, along with changes in the economic situation caused by the occupation of Crimea, had effectively deprived it of its possessions. In applications nos.   48912/18, 20073/19, 45694/19, 543281/21, 30449/22, 30480/22, and 30873/22 the applicants complained that Russian “courts” in Crimea had deprived them of their properties (apartments and land plots) without compensation. In application no.   54328/21 the applicant was found not to be a bona fide purchaser of her apartment and was therefore deprived of it. In the remaining six applications the “courts” in Crimea upheld claims brought against the applicants by the Russian authorities, namely that their respective properties had been privatised in violation of Ukrainian law between 2005 and 2010. In application no.   54919/21 the applicant complained that an apartment he had purchased under Ukrainian law in 2018 from a liquidated Ukrainian bank, V., was registered under Russian law in 2019, without his consent, as the property of a certain O.B. In applications nos.   39098/21 and 42780/23 the applicants complained about the restrictions on the use of their property and its potential de   facto   expropriation imposed by Decree No.   201 of the President of the Russian Federation, dated 20   March   2020. It designated nineteen territories in Crimea and eight in Sevastopol as “border areas of the Russian Federation”, precluding non-Russian nationals from owning land there. The applicants neither disposed of their land in the “border areas” within the transitionary one-year period, nor had their titles annulled. The applicant in application no.   42780/23 further argued that this measure was discriminatory, as she had been treated differently from Ukrainian nationals residing in Crimea who had had Russian nationality imposed on them. In this regard, she relied on Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility criteria set out in Article   35 of the Convention?   Specifically, in applications nos.   48912/18 and 54919/21, have the applicants complied with the six-month rule, as applicable before the entry into force of Article 4 of Protocol No.   15 to the Convention?   2.     In applications nos.   54328/21, 30449/22, 30480/22 and 30873/22, where the applicants acquired their properties under Russian law after the Russian Federation had asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, did their proprietary interests constitute “possessions” or at least gave rise to a “legitimate expectation” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and   38334/18, §   946, 25   June 2024, regarding the Court’s findings that Russian law cannot be considered “law” within the meaning of the Convention)?   Was the situation different for the applicants in applications nos.   45694/19 and 54919/21, who acquired their properties in accordance with Ukrainian law during the same period?   3.     Assuming that all applicants had either a “possession” or a “legitimate expectation” attracting the protection of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, do the measures complained of constitute a violation of that provision (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§   942 ‑ 46 and 1145-51)?   4.     In application no.   42780/23, did the applicant suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions on the grounds of her Ukrainian nationality and place of residence, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 thereto?   APPENDIX   List of applications No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Nationality Year of birth/registration Representative Property (description and location) Type of interference and legal basis (decision, law, etc.) Exhaustion of domestic remedies (judicial decisions with dates)     68289/14 10/10/2014 TORGOVYY DIM GERMES OIL, TOV Ukrainian 2000 Jan Dunin-Wasowicz 1)   A liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) terminal (206.8 sq. m) at the Kerch Fishing Port in Kerch, Crimea, constructed by the applicant company in 2001 (title certificate no.   848, dated 04/01/2003); 2)   A 0.7197-hectare plot of municipal land under the LPG terminal with a renewable 25-year lease (lease agreement with the Kerch Local Council, dated 19/09/2007). The property was subject to a seizure order issued by the “Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol of the Republic of Crimea” on 01/09/2014 (court case no. 3/6-319/2014) in criminal proceedings no. 2014007011. The applicant company did not challenge the order or exhaust any domestic remedies, arguing that such remedies were neither effective nor compliant with international law. The company claimed that the order had effectively deprived it of its possessions and formed part of a broader persecution campaign against its ultimate beneficial owner, Mr I.K., a Ukrainian businessman and the then governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine.     48912/18* 08/10/2018 Syevilya Dzhandarivna SHEYKHALI Ukrainian 1972   Apartment no. 6 (26.1 sq. m), located at Chervonoarmiyska str., 17/8, in Yevpatoriya, Crimea. On 23/01/2007 the applicant became its owner after concluding a life care contract with V.S., the previous owner, in exchange for taking care of the latter until her death. On 01/11/2016 the “Yevpatoriya Town Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the claim of the Ministry of Defence of Russia, annulled the applicant’s title, and vindicated the apartment. The “court” reasoned that the apartment had been privatised by its initial owner (a relative of V.S.) in 2005 in violation of Ukrainian law. The applicant claimed to have found out about the judgment of 01/11/2016 only on 02/10/2018, as she had fled Crimea in 2016 in fear of persecution. She did not resort to any remedies in Russia, since on 03/03/2016 she had been put on a wanted list for, inter alia , opposing the occupation of Crimea, and therefore feared persecution.     20073/19* 28/03/2019 Valentyna Ivanivna BALAN Ukrainian 1965   A land plot no.   8536300000:08:001:0938 (listed as no.   91:01:008001:142 in the Russian cadastre), measuring 1,000 sq. m, located at Istorycheska str., 2A/5 in Sevastopol, Crimea; granted to the applicant through privatisation in 2010 and formalised with a title certificate issued in Sevastopol on 28/09/2013. On 12/03/2018 the “Sevastopol City Court” allowed the claim of the “prosecutor of Balaklava district”, annulled the applicant’s title, and vindicated the land plot. The “court” reasoned that its privatisation in 2010 had violated Ukrainian law. The applicant exhausted all four levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28/03/2019.     45694/19* 19/08/2019 Marlen Seydametovich MAMUTOV Russian 1976   A land plot no. 8536300000:58:0001:0679 (listed as no. 91:01:058001:183 in the Russian cadastre), measuring 1,000 sq. m, located at Kompozytorska str., 56/110 in Sevastopol, Crimea; granted to the applicant through privatisation in 2010 and formalised with a title certificate issued in the Kherson region of Ukraine on 25/04/2014. On 22/05/2017 the “Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol” allowed the claim of the “Sevastopol department of property and land relations”, annulled the applicant’s title, and vindicated the land plot. The “court” reasoned that its privatisation in 2010 had violated Ukrainian law. The applicant exhausted all four levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 27/02/2019.     39098/21* 27/07/2021 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KULIKOV Ukrainian 1955   Five plots of land in Saky district, Crimea purchased by the applicant in 2005-2006: 1) a 0.6-hectare agricultural plot no.   01:243:877:00:03:001:0865; 2) a 0.4-hectare agricultural plot no.   01:243:877:00:03:001:0866; 3) a 0.6-hectare agricultural plot no.   01:243:877:00:03:001:0904; 4) a 0.4-hecatre agricultural plot no.   01:243:877:00:03:001:0905;   5) a residential plot no.   01:243:877: 00:01:002:0267 measuring 830 sq. m. Decree no. 201 of the President of the Russian Federation, dated 20 March 2020. The applicant attempted to challenge point 1(a) of the Decree before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which rejected his claim without consideration (final decision of the Appeals Chamber, dated 27/04/2021).     54328/21 13/10/2021 Zulfiya Akimovna BILYALOVA Russian 1958 Vladimir Ivanovich Fedorov Apartment no. 237 (69.9 sq. m) located at 60 rokiv Zhovtnya str., 28 / 1 Konnoyi Armiyi str., 80 in Simferopol, Crimea. On 26/10/2018 the applicant purchased it from N.K., a private third party. On 20/10/2020 the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the appeal and claim of the “prosecutor of Simferopol” and invalidated the purchase agreement of 26/10/2018, annulled the applicant’s title, and vindicated the apartment in favour of the “Republic of Crimea”. The “courts” found that the applicant was not a bona fide purchaser as N.K., from whom she had bought the apartment in 2018, had gifted it on 21 February 2014 to her employer, a local border guard authority. N.K., however, claimed that she had made the transaction under duress to enable her to leave Crimea, rendering the transaction void and allowing her to retain her title. The applicant exhausted all levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23/08/2021.     54919/21* 02/11/2021 Borys Borysovych LEVCHENKO Ukrainian 1967 Semen Sergiyovych Balabay Apartment no. 2 (87.7 sq. m), located at Shmidta str., 35 / Kyivska str., 50 in Simferopol, Crimea. On 29/05/2018 the applicant purchased it from a liquidated Ukrainian bank, V., via an online auction and subsequently registered his title under Ukrainian law on 25/06/2018. He was unable to register it under Russian law due to the occupation and the non-recognition of Ukrainian transactions in Crimea. On 22/10/2021 the applicant obtained an extract from the Russian register of real estate and discovered that on 10/04/2019 the apartment had been registered in the name of a certain O.B. The extract did not indicate any grounds for the registration. The applicant did not pursue any remedies in Russia, claiming that there was no independent or effective legal system in Crimea.     30449/22* 17/05/2022 Nikolay Valeryevich SHURINOV Russian 1985   Three plots of land located in Opolzneve village, Yalta: 1)   1/3 of a plot measuring 515 sq. m no.   0111949300:02:001:0228 (listed as no.   90:25:070201:681 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 16/09/2019; 2)   1/4 of a plot measuring 485 sq. m no.   0111949300:02:001:0225 (listed as no.   90:25:070201:688 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 20/11/2019; 3)   1/4 of a plot measuring 500 sq. m (listed as no.   90:25:070201:61 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 20/11/2019. On 01/10/2020 and 15/12/2020 the “Yalta Town Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the claims of the “deputy prosecutor of Yalta”, annulled the applicant’s titles and vindicated the land plots. The “court” reasoned that their privatisation in 2009 by their initial owners, third party individuals, had violated Ukrainian law. The applicant exhausted all four levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decisions adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 17/01/2022 and 04/05/2022.     30480/22* 17/05/2022 Ilya Nikolayevich STRELKOV Russian 1985   Two plots of land located in Opolzneve village, Yalta: 1)   2/3 of a plot measuring 515 sq. m no.   0111949300:02:001:0228 (listed as no.   90:25:070201:681 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 18/11/2019; 2)   1/2 of a plot measuring 485 sq. m no.   0111949300:02:001:0225 (listed as no.   90:25:070201:688 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 26/08/2019; 3)   1/2 of a plot measuring 500 sq. m (listed as no.   90:25:070201:61 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 26/08/2019. On 01/10/2020 and 15/12/2020 the “Yalta Town Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the claims of the “deputy prosecutor of Yalta”, annulled the applicant’s titles and vindicated the land plots. The “court” reasoned that their privatisation in 2009 by their initial owners, third party individuals, had violated Ukrainian law. The applicant exhausted all four levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decisions adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 17/01/2022 and 04/05/2022.   30873/22* 17/05/2022 Roman Viktorovich SUKHAREV Russian 1977   Two plots of land located in Opolzneve village, Yalta: 1)   1/4 of a plot measuring 485 sq. m no.   0111949300:02:001:0225 (listed as no.   90:25:070201:688 in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 26/08/2019; 2)   1/4 of a plot measuring 500 sq. m (listed as no.   90:25:070201:61in the Russian cadastre), purchased on 26/08/2019. On 01/10/2020 the “Yalta Town Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed the claim of the “deputy prosecutor of Yalta”, annulled the applicant’s title and vindicated the land plot. The “court” reasoned that its privatisation in 2009 had violated Ukrainian law. The applicant exhausted all four levels of jurisdiction without success, with the final decision adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 17/01/2022.   42780/23* 21/07/2022 Kateryna Mykolayivna RUDENKO Ukrainian 1951 Andriy Viktorovych Yakovlyev An agricultural land plot no.   38 (listed as no.   0124785800.07.001.0317 in the Ukrainian cadastre), measuring 3.0984 ha, located outside Rodnykove village, Simferopol district, Crimea, inherited on 12/08/2010. Decree no. 201 of the President of the Russian Federation, dated 20 March 2020. The applicant did not pursue any domestic remedies, considering them ineffective and illusory. However, she had received several letters from the Russian authorities urging her to sell the land plot, the most recent dated 11/03/2022.