Suggest your question

Name
Email
Essence of the question

Problems movement of property on the peninsula.

Many people and legal entities faced difficulties while evacuating their property from the occupied territory to the mainland Ukraine or vice versa while moving the property to the peninsula. The Russian authorities extended the state border regime to the Crimean isthmus starting from 1 April 2014. The Ukrainian authorities deny the fact that the state border is at this point. However, having no control over the territory of the peninsula, the Ukrainian authorities adopted a special law (the Law of Ukraine “On Creation of the Free Economic Zone “Crimea” and on Peculiarities of Exercising Economic Activity in the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine”), which stated that the movement of goods between the occupied territory and the mainland Ukraine should be treated as import or export. Pursuant to these circumstances common customs regime of the state border is functioning on the Crimean isthmus from both sides, which regulates the movement of goods as export or import . This regime was extended also to the property that was legally purchased and imported into the territory of Ukraine and was in the territory of Crimea before the occupation. Thus, moving of this property became impossible or requires payment of customs duties. Inability to move property relates, for example, to civilian weapons that was legally owned by citizens of arms shops, to cultural and historical values which are stored in private collections and so on.

In this case there is an interference with the right to property in  the form  of  control  over  the  use  of property. Whereas this requirement for payment of customs  duties  and  charges  is  a  disproportionate interference with the right to property when it comes to property  previously  lawfully  imported  into  the territory  of  Ukraine.  Similarly,  the  ban  on  the  export of  property  from  Crimea  or  its  import  to  the peninsula, when it comes to property which before the  occupation  could  be  freely  moved  within  the territory of Ukraine, may also be considered  as a disproportionate  interference  with  right  to  property.

Thus, both on the part of Ukraine and the occupied peninsula there was quite a sharp change in the conditions of the property use, which was not accompanied by a sufficiently long transitional period. Such interference can be defined as a disproportionate restriction of the right to roperty. In view of the recent initiative on the introduction of commercial blockade of Crimea it is necessary to note that the above mentioned applies solely to the property which was owned as of March 2014. Henceforth, the acquisition of the property took place in the new conditions of the occupation and the obligations of the States relative to the rights to this property follow different logic.

See also

Protected: 5.4. Policy on Transfer of Its Own Civil Population from among Educational Workers to the Occupied Territory