The use of force by the Russian military and the violation of property rights

On 15 January 2012, the ECHR found Russia responsible for destruction of property in Chechnya during an exchange of fire between the Russian military and illegal armed groups in the case of Miltayev and Meltayeva v. Russia. This judgment contradicts conclusions of the domestic courts on the same matter as to the absence of State responsibility.

Both applicants ran a private photo laboratory in Chechnya. In 2001, a skirmish took place between the military and illegal armed groups, and the building where the applicants rented a room for their business was set on fire. As a result, their photo laboratory was destroyed. Reports of the local fire service and other commissions that inspected the site right after the attack indicated that the shelling was the cause of the fire. This fact was also confirmed by documents from the criminal investigation. Eye-witness statements pointed at shooting from a tank as a cause of the fire.

Regardless of the evidence submitted by the applicants to the domestic courts, the latter dismissed their compensation claims against the Russian Ministry of Defense due to the following reasons. First, in the courts’ view the Ministry had acted lawfully, since military operations in Chechnya were authorized by respective Presidential and Governmental Decrees. Second, the applicants had not presented evidence confirming that their property had been destroyed by a “source of increased danger” owned by State agents. The ECHR found the domestic courts’ decisions “arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable” and “irreconcilable with the body of evidence submitted by the applicants.”

In the Court’s view, the evidence presented by the applicants was sufficient to determine the existence of Russia’s interference with their property. The Russian Government did not argue as to the lawfulness, legitimate aim or proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ property. Further, according to the ECHR, the Russian laws that released State agents participating in a counter-terrorist operation from any liability for damage caused are formulated in vague and general terms and cannot serve as a sufficient legal basis for the destruction of an individual’s property. In this respect, the ECHR found that Russia violated the applicants’ right to respect their property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).

However, the Court dismissed the applicants’ just satisfaction claims, since the applicants failed to submit their claims to the ECHR within the time-limit after the communication of their complaint to the Russian Government.