CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 September 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 55519/16 and 35580/20 Valeriu FLOREA against Russia and Irina Aleksandrovna LERMANOVA against Russia communicated on 22 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These applications mainly concern issues under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention relating to the Russian authorities’ alleged interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ possessions in Crimea. Application no.   55519/16 In 2000 the applicant, a Romanian national, became the owner of a restaurant in Yalta by a gift from a third-party company. It was located on the ground floor of a multi-level beach terrace within the territory of a hotel, I., that had owned it before. In 2010 the Yalta City Council (the “Yalta Council”) approved I.’s request for the registration of its title to the upper-level terrace with a surface area of 2,491.7 sq.   m that allegedly included the applicant’s restaurant’s roof. In 2013 the applicant registered his title to the restaurant with the register of real estate of Ukraine. According to the relevant extract, his restaurant had a surface area of 274.4   sq.   m and was located on a 327.5 sq.   m plot of land. Later that year, after a local deputy prosecutor’s intervention, the Yalta Council reviewed its 2010 decision and excluded a part of 327.5 sq.   m from I.’s upper level terrace thus reducing it to 2,164.2 sq.   m. In 2015, after the Russian Federation had asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, I. challenged that reviewed decision. On 22 April 2015 the “Yalta City Court of the Republic of Crimea” allowed its claim. Relying on a forensic engineering examination, the “court” reasoned that the restaurant made internal premises of the beach terrace without a particular roof. The upper-level terrace of 2,491.7 sq.   m was found to be inseparable from other beach buildings of I. and as having no common purpose with the applicant’s restaurant. The applicant, who had participated in the proceedings as a third-party intervener, appealed without success (final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 28 March 2016). Relying on Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, he complained that by leaving the restaurant’s roof/upper-level terrace with I. the Russian authorities had interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that he had no effective remedy in this situation. Application no.   35580/20 In 2012 the applicant purchased a 23.7 sq. m café from another individual in the village of Malorichenske, Alushta. She then had her title to it registered under Ukrainian law. On 8 September 2017 the “Alushta City Council” (the “Alushta Council”) adopted a decision no.   42/2 (“the Decision”) ordering, inter alia , to demolish the applicant’s café as illegally constructed. On 5 November 2017 the Decision was enforced. Notwithstanding this, on 8 November 2017, the applicant re-registered her title to the café under Russian law with the “State Committee for the State Registration and Cadastre of the Republic of Crimea”. In early 2018 she sued the “Alushta Council”, seeking annulment of the Decision and compensation of damages caused by the demolition. On 30 August 2018 the “Alushta City Court of the Republic of Crimea” partly allowed her claim: it annulled the Decision in part related to her café, and awarded her 2,403,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The “court” reasoned that the “Alushta Council” had breached procedural rules as it had failed to inform the applicant about its concerns as to the applicant’s café’s legality before adopting the Decision. The “Alushta Council” appealed and also lodged a counter-claim before the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” (acting as an appeal court), seeking annulment of the applicant’s title to the café. On 11 July 2019 the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” set aside the judgment, dismissed the applicant’s claim and allowed the counter-claim by annulling her title. The “Supreme Court” reasoned that the registration of her title under Russian law after the café had been demolished had violated the rights of the “Alushta Council”. The applicant’s subsequent appeals were dismissed (final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 31 January 2020). The applicant complained that the demolition of her café without a court order or compensation had constituted a deprivation of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Application no.   55519/16 1.     Was the 327.5 sq. m part of the upper-level terrace the actual roof of the applicant’s restaurant and did it constitute his “possessions”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (see, for instance, Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, §§   62-63, ECHR 2010)?   2.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under that Article? In particular, did the interference with his rights have a basis in “law” ( see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1142, 1145, 25 June 2024)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Application no.   35580/20 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of her café in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did that deprivation have a basis in “law” (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1142, 1145, 25 June 2024)?   2.     If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?