Nationalization.

The subject of protection of property rights could be raised at the international level only at the European Court of Human Rights. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not contain any provisions which would repeat the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention. At the same time, such a question can only be put in the context of violation of private property right. International human rights standards do not envisage the protection of the state property.

It is obvious that nationalization is deprivation of property in the context of the analytical algorithm, used by the European Court. Other aspects of this algorithm involve the assessment of common interest in this intervention, the presence of the ground/ order prescribed by law and proportionality of the intervention to the interest that is pursued. As a rule, the problems arise even at a stage of detection and evaluation of the common interest. An additional argument in favor of the applicant in these cases might be references to the provisions of international humanitarian law – in particular, to The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (IV) and the Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land. that prohibit seizure of property except for military needs. These provisions limit the discretion of the state much stronger compared to situations where the intervention takes place inside the country. (http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_154; http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/geneva_civilian.shtml; https://www.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e00 4aa3c5; https://www.icrc.org/rus/resources/documents/misc/hague-convention-iv-181007.htm; https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195)