CASE OF IVANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IVANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 57074/17 and 9 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 October 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ivanova and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Anne Louise Bormann, judges,

and Uğur Erdal, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. The third-party comments were received from the Ukrainian Government, who made use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants mainly complained of the cancellation by the Russian authorities of their titles to plots of land in Sevastopol, Crimea. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

1. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

7.  The Court also reiterates that it has already established that the Russian Federation has exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, in the form of “effective control of an area” as from 27 February 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 864 and 873, 25 June 2024).

8.  Accordingly, the applications in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the Court has competence to examine them.

1. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION No. 53374/18

9.  The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 53374/18, Mrs Mariya Ivanovna Krysina, died on 11 June 2020, while the case was pending before it. Her son, Mr Andrey Anatolyevich Krysin, has expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings on his late mother’s behalf (see the appended table). The Court considers that Mr Krysin has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). For reasons of convenience, however, the Court will continue to refer to Mrs Krysina as “the applicant”.

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

10.  The applicants complained of the cancellation by the Russian authorities of their titles to plots of land in Sevastopol, Crimea. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

11.  The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the peaceful enjoyment of property and the conditions for any interferences with that right to be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 94, 11 December 2018; G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 292, 28 June 2018; and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II).

12.  The Court further reiterates its findings in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (cited above, §§ 942 and 946), in which it held that the extension of Russian law to Crimea was contrary to the Convention, as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law, and could not be regarded as “law” within the meaning of the Convention. It further held, as a consequence, that a campaign of expropriation/nationalisation of private property in Crimea based on Russian law did not have a legal basis and was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid., §§ 1134-51).

13.  The Court observes that the applicants had title cancellation actions brought against them by Russian authorities claiming that the privatisation of their plots of land under Ukrainian law had been unlawful (see the appended table). These claims were allowed by the Russian “courts”[1] in Crimea.

14.  Issues similar to those in the present case have already been examined in the leading case of Bazhenov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine, nos. 20092/18 and 11 others, §§ 81-91, 16 July 2026, in which the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

15.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the decisions of the Russian “courts” to cancel the titles and claim the plots of land belonging to the applicants had no basis in law, were not lawful, and created a continuing situation of “deprivation”.

16.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

1. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

17.  Some applicants complained, explicitly or in substance, that their cases had been determined by courts operating in Crimea which could not be considered as tribunals “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see appended table). These complaints raise an issue under that provision, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (cited above, §§ 1013, 1019 and 1022).

1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

18.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under Articles 6 (fairness of proceedings, impartiality of tribunal) and 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings in paragraphs 16‑17 above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 156).

1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bazhenov and Others, cited above, § 117), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. In principle, the Court does not award any sum to the applicants who have failed to submit their just satisfaction claims despite having been invited to do so. Where the applicant has not made a claim under pecuniary damage and/or costs and expenses, the Court, having regard to Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, only awards the sums under those heads where the call was made (see Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 93, 30 March 2017).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;
2.      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications;
3.      Holds that Mr Andrey Anatolyevich Krysin has standing to pursue the application no. 53374/18 in his late mother’s stead;
4.      Declares the complaints concerning the cancellation by the Russian authorities of property titles in Crimea and the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints raised under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
5.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the cancellation by the Russian authorities of property titles in Crimea;
6.      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7.      Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
   2.   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
8.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Uğur Erdal Lorraine Schembri Orland

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(cancellation by the Russian authorities of property titles in Crimea)

[1]  The names of courts established in Crimea under Russian law are indicated in inverted commas (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 41, 25 June 2024).

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.