The ECHR Obliged Russia to Pay Compensation to Crimeans for Land Plots Seized under the "Law of the Russian Federation"

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized the deprivation of property rights to land plots in occupied Crimea based on Russian legislation as unlawful. In the case of "Bazhenov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine" (applications No. 20092/18 and 11 others), the decision of which the ECHR adopted on July 16, 2026, the Court examined the legality of the mass review of the results of land privatization in Crimea after its occupation by the Russian Federation.

This case is key to understanding the limits of the application of occupation law and the status of judicial bodies established in non-controlled territories.

The relevance of this topic is due to the need to protect the rights of thousands of people whose property was de facto confiscated by the authorities under the pretext of "restoring social justice" or correcting mistakes of the previous administration.

Circumstances of the case

The facts of the case began in 2009–2010, when the Sevastopol city administration and city council adopted a series of decisions on transferring land plots from state ownership to private ownership for the construction of "individual summer houses."

These decisions concerned both individual citizens and summer house cooperatives. During 2010–2014, the Ukrainian authorities conducted checks on the legality of this privatization, and Ukrainian administrative courts confirmed the legality of the decisions on land allocation, while criminal proceedings were closed due to lack of evidence of a crime.

After the Russian Federation established effective control over Crimea, the situation changed drastically. During 2015–2017, the de facto authorities of Sevastopol initiated hundreds of lawsuits to cancel property rights and return the land to the state.

The main argument was that the privatization in 2009–2010 allegedly violated Ukrainian law, as these plots belonged to the forest fund and were not subject to transfer into private hands. Russian "courts" in Crimea satisfied these claims by applying provisions of the Russian Civil Code on recovery of property from "illegal possession."

The applicants, who were lawful owners, lost their land without any compensation. At the same time, one of the applicants who purchased a plot after 2014 under Russian law also lost ownership and was obliged to pay compensation to the previous owner.

Position of the ECHR

Analyzing the legality of interference with property rights, the Court relied on its previous findings in the interstate case "Ukraine v. Russia (regarding Crimea)." The ECHR noted that the mass application of Russian legislation in Crimea contradicts the Convention, interpreted in light of international humanitarian law, and cannot be considered "law" within the meaning of the Convention.

Assessing the situation of different applicants, the Court made an important distinction. Regarding the second applicant, who acquired land under Russian law after the annexation, the Court emphasized that no legal provision or legal act qualified as "law" can be the basis for establishing a legitimate expectation of property protection if such a transaction was concluded contrary to Ukrainian law and principles of international law.

Therefore, her property interests did not constitute "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

In contrast, regarding other applicants who held titles under Ukrainian law, the Court was unequivocal. The ECHR stated that the contested decisions could not be justified by international humanitarian law, as they violated the prohibition of confiscation established in Article 46 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which allows no exceptions for military or any other reasons.

The Court stressed that since the titles were annulled based on provisions of Russian law applied by Russian "courts," such a measure could not be lawful under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Special attention was paid to the legitimacy of the judicial system in Crimea. The Court emphasized that courts in Crimea acting contrary to the Convention, interpreted in light of international humanitarian law, are not considered "established by law" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The ECHR also stressed that deprivation of property rights based on an invalid legal act is not a one-time interference but creates a continuing situation of violation of property rights.

It was precisely for this reason that the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants' rights was of a continuing nature, and therefore there were no grounds to consider that they missed the deadline for applying to the ECHR.

Violation of the Convention

The Court analyzed compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Regarding the first, fourth, and fifth applicants, a violation of the right to property protection was established, as the land seizure had no proper legal basis and violated international standards.

Regarding the second applicant, the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was declared inadmissible, but a violation of Article 6 § 1 was found.

Overall, the Court found that all applicants were deprived of the right to have their cases heard by an independent and impartial court established by law due to the illegitimacy of the judicial system deployed by Russia in the occupied territory.

Thus, the ECHR ruled that the Russian Federation violated the applicants' rights and awarded the applicants 55,000 EUR in compensation for material and moral damages, as well as reimbursement of legal costs.

The legal position formulated by the Court has fundamental importance for national judicial practice, as it confirms that acts of the occupying authorities adopted using Russian legislation contrary to international humanitarian law cannot be recognized as a lawful basis for deprivation of property rights.

This decision is an important tool for the future restoration of owners' rights and protection of citizens' interests in territories under temporary control.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.