This judgment, *Bazhenov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine*, concerns the systematic cancellation of land titles in Sevastopol, Crimea, by Russian authorities following the 2014 annexation. The applicants, who had originally acquired their land through Ukrainian administrative procedures, saw their titles annulled by Russian “courts” under the pretext that the land was forest property and thus improperly privatized. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined whether these actions violated the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the right to a fair trial. The Court ultimately found that the Russian judicial system in Crimea operated in violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, the Court held that the deprivation of property was unlawful and that the applicants were denied a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law. This decision serves as a significant legal reinforcement of the non-recognition of Russian administrative and judicial acts in occupied territories. ****
### Structure and Provisions
The decision is structured as follows:
* **Jurisdiction and Admissibility:** The Court confirms its jurisdiction over Russia for acts occurring before its departure from the Council of Europe in 2022. It strikes out complaints against Ukraine at the applicants’ request and clarifies the “victim status” of the parties involved.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Possessions):** The Court distinguishes between those who had a legitimate expectation of property (the first, fourth, and fifth applicants) and those whose titles were deemed invalid under the specific circumstances of the occupation (the second applicant).
* **Article 6 § 1 (Fair Trial):** The Court reaffirms that Russian “courts” in Crimea are not “tribunals established by law” because they operate in contravention of the Convention and IHL.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awards aggregate sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, acknowledging the impossibility of *restitutio in integrum* due to current restrictions on land ownership in Crimea.
Compared to previous rulings, this judgment explicitly applies the findings of the Grand Chamber in *Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)* to individual property disputes, solidifying the legal position that Russian judicial acts in occupied Crimea lack the status of “law” under the Convention.
### Key Provisions for Legal Use
For practitioners and observers, the following elements are the most critical:
1. **Non-Recognition of “Law”:** The Court reiterates that the wholesale application of Russian law in Crimea is contrary to the Convention and IHL. Therefore, any judicial decision based on Russian law in this context cannot be considered “in accordance with the law” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
2. **The “Namibia Exception” Limitation:** The Court clarifies that the “Namibia exception” (which allows for the recognition of certain administrative acts in occupied territories to protect the rights of inhabitants) does not apply here. Because the Russian judicial system in Crimea is fundamentally incompatible with the Convention, its acts cannot be validated through this exception.
3. **Continuing Situation of Deprivation:** The Court confirms that the cancellation of land titles by an invalid legal act creates a “continuing situation” of deprivation. This is crucial for overcoming the six-month time-limit rule, as the violation is not viewed as an instantaneous act but as an ongoing interference with property rights.
4. **Prohibition of Confiscation:** The Court emphasizes that the deprivation of property was not justified under IHL, specifically citing Article 46 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which provides an unqualified prohibition against the confiscation of private property.
5. **Tribunals Not Established by Law:** The finding that the Russian “courts” in Crimea are not “established by law” provides a clear precedent for challenging any judicial outcome originating from these bodies, as they lack the necessary legal legitimacy under the Convention framework.
