The constitutional court allowed to challenge the nationalization of property in Crimea
The constitutional court (CC) of Russia has obliged the courts to accept for consideration the complaint of nationalization of real estate in the Crimea, reported on the website of the court. The reason for the CC decision were the claims of OOO “diving Center “Solyarius””, OOO “FORMAT-it” and “Promkholding”.
The organization claimed that the legislation allows to deprive of property on the Peninsula “extrajudicially and without any compensation.”
The applicants challenged the provisions of the regional law “On peculiarities of regulation of property and land relations on the territory of the Republic of Crimea” and the resolution of the state Council of Crimea “On issues of property management of the Republic of Crimea”. According to the applicants, the contested norms allow them “arbitrarily set the exceptions from the General rules on retention of title to the immovable property incurred before the entry into force of the law on education in the Russian Federation two new subjects”.
As specified in the COP, under the provisions of the contested law, the owners retain the right of ownership of the property arising before the entry of the Crimea and Sevastopol a part of Russia, except cases stipulated by Russian and Crimean normative legal acts.
The court explained that the right of ownership to real property from the former right holder is terminated from the day of its inclusion in the list of property deemed to be the property of the Crimea.
“The mere fact of inclusion of the property in the list cannot be a ground for refusal by the court in the proceedings on the legality of the introduction into it of the disputed properties. The courts should not consider such questions formally are required to examine the facts of the case took place economic restructuring and transformation of relations of ownership of the disputed property,” said the COP.
The court explained that the list included the property in respect of which there was a “reasonable assumption that it belongs to Ukraine”, — in particular, due to the lack of “a duly executed documents confirming the right of ownership of other persons in such property, beskonechnosti property, or the lack of legal grounds for the disposal of this property from the state property”.