Economy

Moratorium on sale of agricultural land in Ukraine violates human rights

The permanent extension in Ukraine of a moratorium on the sale of agricultural land violates human rights, according to a judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the basis of complaints from two Ukrainian citizens who received small land plots in 2000 and 2004.

"No other Council of Europe state had such a blanket ban, including similar transition economies, which had used other laws to achieve the goals cited by the Government [...] The Court found that the burden imposed on the two applicants had been excessive," reads the court judgment published on Tuesday.

The court awarded 3,000 euros for each applicant for costs and expenses, but no monetary compensation was awarded to the applicants. It stressed that it would normally make no such awards in future cases of this type.

According to the judgment, Ukrainian citizens Sofiya Zelenchuk and Viktor Tsytsyura received property certificates in 2007 and 2008 and leased land plots to companies. Sale of both plots is not possible because of the moratorium on the sale of agricultural land in accordance with the Land Code.

The key factor in the violation of the property rights of the applicants, according to the court's decision, was that Ukraine consistently set itself the task of permitting the purchase and sale of agricultural land as soon as land sales market infrastructure was created. However, contrary to this goal, the initial moratorium, introduced until 2005, was extended several times and is still in force.

The ECHR urged Ukraine to regulate the agricultural land market more quickly, since a moratorium was introduced for this legislative settlement.

"The Court […] held that Ukraine should take appropriate legislative or other measures to ensure a fair balance between the interests of farm land owners and the general community. The Court highlighted that it did not require the immediate introduction of an unrestricted market in agricultural land and that the State remained free to choose what measures to take," reads the judgment.

Advertising
Advertising

MORE ABOUT

LATEST