Background
Between 2009 and 2010, Ukrainian authorities in Sevastopol, Crimea privatized plots of public land to individuals and dacha cooperatives through lawful administrative decisions. The Ukrainian administrative courts confirmed these allocations were lawful. After Russia asserted control over Crimea in February 2014, Russian authorities commenced actions in Russian courts against the applicants to cancel their titles, arguing the land should never have been privatized because it constituted forest land under Ukrainian law. The Russian courts granted the claims and ordered the land returned to the Russian Federation without compensation.
The applicants, Ukrainian and Russian nationals who held valid titles to the land, complained that the cancellation violated their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1. They relied on the principle that properties lawfully acquired under the law in force at the time of acquisition retain protection.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Section unanimously found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court applied principles from its landmark judgment Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), holding that the wholesale application of Russian law in Crimea after its territorial acquisition was in breach of the Convention when interpreted in light of international humanitarian law. The Court determined that the Russian authorities could not retroactively invalidate property titles lawfully created under Ukrainian law by applying Russian domestic law principles.
Critically, the Court held that the deprivation was not “in accordance with law” because it resulted from invalid legal acts. The Russian authorities’ actions violated Article 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which absolutely prohibits the confiscation of private property and permits no exceptions for military necessity or other grounds. The Court also found that Russian courts operating in Crimea were not “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, as they operated in contravention of the Convention and international humanitarian law. The Court struck out portions of the applications against Ukraine as the applicants had withdrawn those claims and continued examination was not required by human rights considerations.
Key Takeaways
- Occupying powers cannot unilaterally expropriate property by retroactively applying their domestic law to transactions lawfully completed under the prior regime’s law
- Article 46 of the Hague Regulations prohibiting private property confiscation is absolute and admits no exceptions, even for security or military reasons
- Courts applying the occupying power’s law to invalidate pre-existing property rights in occupied territory do not qualify as “established by law” under the Convention
- International humanitarian law principles, not merely domestic law, determine the lawfulness of property deprivations in occupied territories
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces the precedent that states cannot leverage territorial control to confiscate private property through judicial processes that apply their domestic law retroactively. It establishes that international humanitarian law sets a floor for property protection that cannot be undercut by occupying powers asserting state sovereignty. The ruling has substantial implications for millions of property owners affected by territorial changes, including in Crimea where over 3,800 land plots were confiscated during 2014–2017 under similar legal theories.
The decision signals that the European Court will not defer to occupation authorities’ judicial pronouncements on property matters when those courts operate outside the Convention’s framework. It reinforces that occupation does not create a legal vacuum where the occupying power’s domestic rules govern fundamental rights, and that such rules must yield to international humanitarian law obligations protecting civilian property.