Rymsko-Katolytska Gromada Svyatogo Klymentiya v Misti Sevastopoli v. Ukraine, No. 22607/02, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 3 May 2016 (dec.)

Failure to return a building of worship expropriated during the Soviet domination of Ukraine to a religious organization. The application, which alleges a violation of art. 9 of the ECHR and art. 1 of Protocol 1, is manifestly ill-founded.

Art. 9 ECHR
Art. 1 Prot. 1 ECHR

1. An applicant can claim a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the measures complained of relate to his “possessions” within the meaning of this provision. “Possessions” can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right.

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be interpreted as imposing any general obligation on the Contracting States to return property which was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. Nor does Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 impose any restrictions on the Contracting States’ freedom to determine the scope of property restitution and to choose the conditions under which they agree to restore property rights to former owners. Under certain circumstances the authorities’ conduct can give rise to legitimate expectations. There is, however, a difference between a mere hope of acquiring a property and a “legitimate expectation” which must be of a nature more concrete and based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision. Similarly, no “legitimate expectation” can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts.

3. Article 9 does not, as such, afford a religious community any right to the return of the ownership of a building of worship confiscated a long time previously.
(In the present case, the applicant organization had requested to become the owner of a building originally consecrated to Catholic worship, expropriated during the Soviet regime and converted, first, into an electricity substation and then into a cinema. The internal judges had ruled out the organization's right on the basis of an interpretation of the relevant legislation. The Court considers that the appellant's complaints have been carefully examined, so that it could not claim a relevant "legitimate expectation" within the meaning of Protocol 1. The alleged violations of art. 9 of the ECHR are instead considered manifestly ill-founded)