Title The Supreme Court Resolution of 4 September 2019
Publisher Ukraine: Supreme Court
Publication Date 4 September 2019
Country Ukraine
Topics Terrorism | Ukrainians
Citation / Document Symbol 265/6582/16-ц
Cite as The Supreme Court Resolution of 4 September 2019, 265/6582/16-ц, Ukraine: Supreme Court, 4 September 2019, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,UKR_SC,61f7dc004.html [accessed 19 May 2023]
Comments On 4 September 2019, the Supreme Court adopted its Resolution with regard to compensation for destroyed commercial premises caused by acts of terrorism. On 4 November 2016, the applicant referred to a first-instance court, requesting a compensation for her commercial premises destroyed during the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Mariupol. The main argumentation was based on the lack of a special order regulating payment of compensation for the ATO consequences in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and applicability of relevant European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. A first-instance court stated that Ukraine should compensate damages/destructions caused by an act of terrorism from the State Budget funds irrespective of Ukraine’s culpability. Simultaneously, the state preserves the right of recourse claim on reimbursing compensation from those liable for acts of terrorism. The Court of Appeals supported this decision. The Supreme Court stated that under Protocol 1 to the European Human Rights Convention an applicant has a right to claim compensation for her damaged or destroyed property irrespective of the fact that the national legal framework on compensatory mechanism is non-existent. It underlined that there is a need to clarify which obligations of the state were violated. Non-fulfilment of positive obligations (introducing a legal framework to ensure that property right violated in the course of the conflict may be effectively protected) or negative obligations (which requires non-interference with the peaceful ownership) will result in the different level of compensation. Since the decisions of lower instance courts did not clarify which particular obligations of the state (positive or negative) were violated, the Supreme Court re-submitted this case to a first-instance court for re-examination.
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.