CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 198 July 2016 Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.) - 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50853/15 Decision 5.7.2016 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3 Manifestly ill-founded Failure to provide prima facie evidence in support of complaints about destruction of property in context of armed conflict: inadmissible Facts – In April 2014, after the events in Ukraine commonly referred to as the “Revolution of Dignity” or “Euromaidan”, armed pro-Russian groups started to seize official buildings in the east of Ukraine and announced the creation of the so-called “Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics”. In response, an “anti-terrorist” operation was launched by the Ukrainian government. Relying on Articles 2, 6, 8, 10, 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicants complained that their lives had been put at risk and their homes damaged or destroyed as a result of the shelling of the villages where they lived. Law – Article 35 § 3 (a): Given the adversarial nature of the proceedings before the Court, it was for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the Court with the necessary evidence. In so far as the applicants relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the Court had accepted the claim of ownership by some applicants on the basis of extracts from a housing inventory issued by the town administration after the attack complained of. The Court had also considered that an applicant complaining about the destruction of his home should provide at least a brief description of the property in question. As further examples of prima facie evidence of ownership of or residence on property, the Court had accepted documents such as land or property titles, extracts from land or tax registers, documents from the local administration, plans, photographs and maintenance receipts as well as proof of mail deliveries, statements of witnesses or any other relevant evidence. Generally, if an applicant did not produce any evidence of title or residence, his complaints were bound to fail. To sum up, applicants were required to provide sufficient prima facie evidence in support of their complaints about destruction of property in the context of armed conflict.* Similar considerations applied as far as complaints made under Articles   2, 6 §   1, 8, 10 and 13 were concerned. The applicants in the instant cases, who were legally represented, had submitted copies of their passports, photographs of a destroyed house but without proof of ownership, copies of various reports of the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe and certain printouts of items found on the Internet on the general situation in eastern Ukraine. The Court had consistently applied a more lenient approach in cases where the applicants might encounter difficulties in submitting documentary evidence to support their complaints due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control, such as a situation of ongoing conflict. However, the applicants had not made any submissions as to the reasons why they had failed to submit any relevant documents supporting their Convention claims. Nor had they informed the Court of any attempts they might have made in order to obtain at least fragmentary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations. In these circumstances, and in application of Rule 44C §   1 of its Rules, the Court concluded that their complaints had not been sufficiently substantiated. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). * Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], 40167/06, 16   June 2015, Information Note   186 .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes