Background
The case joined four applications concerning land titles that Ukrainian authorities and courts invalidated or reclaimed. The applicants had acquired or received title to agricultural or other land in the Kyiv, Lviv and Kirovohrad regions. The State reclaimed the plots on grounds including that an authority had acted outside its powers, that land formed part of a border-strip defence area, and that land belonged to a reserve fund.
The applicants complained that they lost their property without compensation. The Court treated all of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
The Court’s Holding
Unanimously, the Court declared the applications admissible and held that Ukraine had breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It found no reason to depart from its earlier judgments in Drozdyk and Mikula v. Ukraine and Kosmatska v. Ukraine, which addressed similar title-invalidations.
The cancellation of the applicants’ titles imposed a disproportionate burden because there was no compensation, or no certainty of obtaining compensation, for their losses. The Court reiterated that taking property without payment reasonably related to its value will normally be disproportionate, and that a complete absence of compensation is justified only in exceptional circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- Invalidating property titles without effective compensation violated the applicants’ property rights.
- Ukraine must secure restitution of title and return of the property where possible, including through reopening domestic proceedings if appropriate.
- Alternatively, Ukraine must provide monetary compensation calculated under domestic valuation requirements and Strasbourg case-law, or comparable property.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s developing line of Ukrainian property-rights cases: public-interest grounds for reclaiming land do not remove the need to preserve a fair balance for title holders. Where title is annulled, the State must provide a realistic and effective route to restitution or equivalent redress.
The Court also awarded the applicants the appendix-listed sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, payable within three months, while ordering full restitution or alternative compensation within a reasonable time.