Regarding proving the illegality of the destruction of “property”

14/ 06/ 2022

Author: Alexey Grachev, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment Destruction of property during war in the context of § 1 of Additional Protocol № 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) is regarded by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of the relevant Convention. However, to paraphrase a well-known statement, the ECtHR does not believe in tears, it should be noted that in order to obtain protection under the Protocol, the applicant must provide the Court with the necessary level of proof of ownership. Methods of proof vary and depend on the category of cases. For example, in cases where the applicants complained about the demolition of their homes during the armed conflict, the Court upheld a claim for property rights based on extracts from the housing stock issued by the city administration following the attack in question. The court ruled that the applicants, complaining about the demolition of their home, should provide at least a brief description of the property in question. As additional examples of proof of ownership or residence, the Court accepted such documents as title documents to land and property, extracts from land cadastres and tax registers, documents of local administration, plans, photographs and receipts, as well as evidence of mail delivery, testimony witnesses or any other evidence related to the case. It is noteworthy that technical passports were considered as general inventory and technical documents and were considered indirect evidence of ownership of buildings and land. Despite the diversity of property protected by the Convention: movable or immovable property, legitimate expectations, rights of claim, securities, professional clients, licenses, future income, intellectual property, property arena, social security, Dynasty Law & Investment lawyers will find ways to do so. protection at the national and international levels.

Author: Alexey Grachev, lawyer of Dynasty Law & Investment

Destruction of property during war in the context of § 1 of Additional Protocol № 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Protocol”) is regarded by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of the relevant Convention. However, to paraphrase a well-known statement, “the ECtHR does not believe in tears”, it should be noted that in order to obtain protection under the Protocol, the applicant must provide the Court with the necessary level of proof of ownership.

Methods of proof vary and depend on the category of cases. For example, in cases where the applicants complained about the demolition of their homes during the armed conflict, the Court upheld a claim for property rights based on extracts from the housing stock issued by the city administration following the attack in question. The court ruled that the applicants, complaining about the demolition of their home, should provide at least a brief description of the property in question. As additional examples of proof of ownership or residence, the Court accepted such documents as title documents to land and property, extracts from land cadastres and tax registers, documents of local administration, plans, photographs and receipts, as well as evidence of mail delivery, testimony witnesses or any other evidence related to the case.

It is noteworthy that technical passports were considered as general “inventory and technical documents” and were considered indirect evidence of ownership of buildings and land.

Despite the diversity of property protected by the Convention: movable or immovable property, legitimate expectations, rights of claim, securities, professional clients, licenses, future income, intellectual property, property arena, social security, Dynasty Law & Investment lawyers will find ways to do so. protection at the national and international levels.