HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
Europe – The European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment of 4 December 2025 (No. 9953/16 – Kosmatska v. Ukraine), found Ukraine responsible for ensuring the full restitution of the applicant’s property title over a plot of land, or providing her with financial compensation or equivalent property, when the land had been purchased in good faith from individuals who had acquired it fraudulently to the detriment of the Ukrainian State. The Court held that, although the public-interest objective invoked (restoration of land lawfulness) may be legitimate, the measure applied to the applicant was disproportionate due to her good faith and the State’s failure in maintaining land registers, as this dispossession imposed an excessive individual burden on the bona fide citizen.
The application concerns the deprivation of a plot of land purchased by the applicant from private individuals, following court decisions granting the prosecutor’s action to return the land to the State. The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
By several decisions adopted in April 2008, the Borodyanka District State Administration, Kyiv region, Ukraine, allocated plots of 2 hectares each to 109 individuals through privatization for individual agricultural use, including the plot in question, with ownership titles granted in July 2008.
In October 2008, Ms. Kosmatska purchased from private individuals several plots totaling 28 hectares.
These plots had originally been State property but had been irregularly acquired by the sellers from whom Ms. Kosmatska bought them.
The case concerns subsequent decisions by which courts returned the disputed land to the State following actions brought by a prosecutor seeking to annul the original ownership titles.
Ultimately, the courts concluded in 2015 that the land had left State ownership unlawfully due to failures, including possible fraud, occurring during the initial privatization procedure.
The applicant relied on Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property).
The applicant complained that depriving her of this land without compensation, despite her having acquired it in good faith, constituted an unlawful and disproportionate measure.
The Court found that the manner in which the dispossession took place violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court recalled that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and that any deprivation of property must be lawful, pursue a legitimate public-interest aim, and be proportionate. The applicant had acquired the land in 2008, her title had been duly registered, and she had never been suspected of participating in any fraud.
The Court also observed that the authorities annulled the 2008 decisions without hearing the affected owners, including the applicant, and without determining which individuals were actually involved in the irregularities.
It held that the State cannot rely on its own failures in managing land registers or controlling administrative procedures to retroactively deprive a bona fide purchaser of their rights.
Consequently, while the public-interest objective invoked (restoration of land lawfulness) may be legitimate, the measure applied to the applicant was disproportionate and imposed an excessive individual burden on her.
In view of the established violation, the Court considered that, as just satisfaction, Ukraine should ensure an adequate remedy, either by restoring the land if possible or, if that is not feasible, by providing full compensation under Article 41.
The Court also noted that Ukrainian legislation does not comply with European standards and held that, under Article 46, Ukraine must adopt general measures to guarantee the security of property transactions, the reliability of land registers, and the protection of bona fide owners, particularly where irregularities result from administrative errors.
For these reasons, the Court:
-
Found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights;
-
Held that Ukraine must, by appropriate means and within a reasonable time, ensure the full restitution of the applicant’s property title over the reclaimed land, or provide her with financial compensation or equivalent property.
To access the full judgment, follow the link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-247354%22]}.