MY HOUSE – SOMEONE’S FORTRESS: THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER CONDITIONS OF THE ARMED CONFLICT IN THE EAST OF UKRAINE Kyiv 2016 УДК 342.739 + 343.9 ББК 66.061.461 М 57 The report contains information obtained during field monitoring mis- sions conducted under support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the framework of the “Human Rights in Action” Project implemented by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID or the United States Government. The American people, through the USAID, have provided economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide for 50 years. In Ukraine, USAID’s assistance focuses on three areas: Health and Social Transition, Eco- nomic Growth and Democracy and Governance. USAID has provided 1.8 bln technical and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since 1992. For additional information about USAID programs in Ukraine, please visit our website: ukraine.usaid.gov or our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/USAIDUkraine. М 57 My house – someone’s fortress: the right to property under conditions of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine / О. А. Bida, А. B. Blaga, О. А. Mar- tynenko, М. G. Statkevych; ex. Chief Editor А.P. Bushchenko / Ukrainian Hel- sinki Human Rights Union. – Kyiv, 2016. The publication provides a comprehensive analysis of property rights protec- tion in the current situation of armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. It explains the international legal understanding of the essence of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and its legal nature; analyzes the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the formation of European standards for property rights protection in the situation of armed conflict. Also it considers peculiarities of property rights protec- tion amid armed conflict in the East of Ukraine. УДК 342.739 + 343.9 ББК 66.061.461 © O.A. Bida, A.B. Blaga, O.A. Martynenko, M.H. Statkevych, 2016 ISBN 978-966-97584-0-8 © Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union, 2016 CONTENTS Foreword .............................................................................................................................. 4 1. IINTERNATIONAL LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ............. 5 1.1. The right to peaceful enjoyment of property in international documents .................. 5 1.2. European Court of Human Rights case-law regarding property rights ...................... 10 1.3. Protection of property in international humanitarian law .......................................... 14 2. MILITARY CONFLICT AND STATE OF AFFAIRS ON PROPERTY PROTECTION IN THE EAST OF UKRAINE .............................................................................................. 19 2.1. Military conflict in the East of Ukraine and the state of affairs on protection of civilians and civilian property from indiscriminate attacks ..................................... 21 2.2. Military conflict in the East of Ukraine and the state of affairs on protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property .......................................................... 37 2.3. Authorities’ response to violations of property rights in the ATO zone ...................... 75 3. RESULTS OF MONITORING VISITS OF UKRAINIAN HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS UNION ..............................................................................................................84 3.1. Results of monitoring visits to Mariupol and Sartana of Donetsk region on October 3-8, 2015 ...................................................................................................84 3.2. Results of monitoring visit to Stanytsia Luhanska District of Luhansk region on October 15-20, 2015 .................................................................................... 91 3.3. Results of monitoring visit to Stanytsia Luhanska on December 26-28, 2015 ............ 96 3.4. Results of monitoring visit to Kramatorsk in Donetsk region on January 25-29, 2016 ................................................................................................. 98 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................. 115 APPENDICES................................................................................................................... 122 3 FOREWORD Arkadiy Bushchenko, UHHRU Executive Director UNDERSTANDING of property rights, respect for and protection of the institu- tion of property owning passed through several often polar interpretations during its development: from implementation of an individual freedom to robbery and exploitation of others. Finally, the international practice recognized the need to respect and protect this right as the other human rights. Due to historical circum- stances and the current practices our country can not serve as a worthy successor of the best traditions of respect for property rights. Intellect piracy which resulted in “top” of the corresponding rankings, unlawful deprivation of property and busi- ness, combined with dependent judiciary are the symptoms that will frighten rath- er than encourage potential investors. Military conflict in the East of Ukraine further aggravated the problem of total disregard for property and ownership further on, and along with that for human dignity. Shelling of public buildings followed by installation of military positions in residential areas, illegal seizure of houses and businesses has unfortunately become the status quo and a traditional background of the confrontations. Besides, cases of obvious robbery of locals by the National Guard volunteer battalions’ represen- tatives are difficult to be equated with the struggle for the “minds” of residents of Donbas. The proposed analytical report reveals the most typical violations of property rights in the territory of the military conflict. Based on the evidences of local resi- dents, monitoring missions to the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, we at- tempted to assess the extent of caused damage to the institution of ownership and the government’s ability to influence the mitigation of such losses. We expect that the presented analyzes of the issues and elaborated recommen- dations will be useful for the national authorities for developing strategies and pro- grams to protect human rights in the context of the ATO operations. The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union expresses its grateful acknowledg- ment to the experts who contributed into this analytical review. In addition, we are thankful to the public institutions and local initiatives for the information provided. We express special gratitude to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provided financial assistance to prepare this publication. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and do not necessarily reflect those of the USAID or the United States Government. 4 1. 1. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION 1.1. The right to peaceful enjoyment of property in international documents THE ISSUE OF MERITS of the property human right, its legal nature and the required degree of protection remains a subject of debate for a long time. Thus, the realization that the right to peaceful enjoyment of own possessions / property (or property rights) is one of human rights, was rather slow. It is well known that for thousands of years in the society dominating was the idea that not all people can own property. Other ap- proaches account for only a few centuries1. In particular, John. Locke believed the relationship of the individual freedom with private property is indissoluble, “‘Life, freedom and possessions’ - these are concepts that can be identified with one common name – ‘property.’” In his view, an individual by his nature has the power to protect his property, that is his life, freedom and possessions, and that the supreme power can not deprive people of some of their property without their consent2. We shall add that in Anglo-Saxon legal system the property rights are still provided with special role. As noted by S. Shevchuk, in English law already in the middle of ХVІІІ century, it was recognized that a great goal, for which people formed the society, is protection of property. This right is sacred and inviolable in all circumstances, while it is not limited by public rights for the good of society. Thus, as noted by the sci- entist, property for the purposes of constitutional law is not a thing in itself, and serves for more profound goals such as: improving welfare, protection of privacy and personal fulfillment3. Instead, a French socialist, one of the founders of anarchism, Pierre Joseph Proudhon in his book «What is Property?» (1840) wrote that property is theft, since it allows to have «income without labor.» Accordingly, it contradicts to justice, because you can not find any principle on which we could justify it 4. In turn, Karl Marx, and with him, the socialists and communists defended the idea of THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER CONDITIONS OF ARMED CONFLICT IN EAST UKRAINE antagonism between capital and wage labor, between relations of production and pro- ductive forces that strive to move forward, and this antagonism will inevitably lead of the historical necessity for revolution5. Historical analysis of the development of law leads to the conclusion that in the early development stages mankind for thousands of years has used collective forms of owner- ship, first in the form of tribe,