Property right

Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest. Intellectual property shall be protected.

Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
Text as of March 2026

Based on research and human rights practice, the following problems in the exercise of this right in Ukraine can be distinguished:

  1. The Constitution of Ukraine provides only limited protection for property rights. Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, unlike Article 17 of the EU Charter, does not address testamentary rights and provides certain guarantees only to citizens, thereby excluding non-citizens from some property relations. The Constitution does not specify requirements for the “fairness” of compensation.
  2. Underestimation of compensation in case of forced alienation of property. Although legislation requires prior and full compensation for property value, authorities often propose lower compensation by appointing subordinated appraisers. In some cases, case law records that valuations by local government bodies were more than 60 times lower than independent market valuations. The ECtHR has repeatedly found violations of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention in cases against Ukraine. In the Shchokin case (2010), the Court emphasized that any interference with the ownership right must be lawful and foreseeable. Similar findings were made in the Serkov (2011), Feldman (2012), and East/West Alliance Limited (2014) cases.
  3. Lack of clear regulatory criteria for property valuation. The process for determining compensation for forced alienation lacks objective qualitative criteria and does not include a collective assessment. There is minimal accountability for knowingly improper valuation, which may enable abuses by authorities.
  4. The failure to enforce court decisions in property cases represents a widespread and persistent issue. Failure to enforce, or delays in enforcing, national court decisions in property cases is the most significant and widespread issue affecting the protection of property rights in Ukraine. In the pilot decision “Yuriy Mykolayovych Ivanov v. Ukraine” (2009), the ECtHR found violations of Art. 6 § 1, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Art. 1 of Protocol 1, and instructed Ukraine to implement general measures to address the issue. After this decision was not enforced, the Grand Chamber in “Burmych and Others v. Ukraine” (2017) referred tens of thousands of similar cases to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The European Commission’s 2025 report recommends adopting legislation to strengthen the enforcement of court decisions. A moratorium on enforcing court decisions for many state-owned enterprises, including those in the fuel and energy, shipbuilding, and pipeline transport sectors, restricts private property rights, discriminates against other ownership forms, and fosters corruption in debt repayment. See the separate section on non-enforcement of court decisions.
  5. The problem of registering property and property rights. The registers do not include information on many real estate owners. Ukraine ranks 102nd in the International Intellectual Property Rights Index (IPRI). The legislation is unsystematic and inconsistent, which hinders the entry of ownership information into registers. The situation deteriorated as local authorities, particularly the BTI, lost information as a result of hostilities. Institutional reforms to the State Register of Real Property Rights and the Land Cadaster are not yet complete. A legacy of the Soviet era is the separation of land rights from ownership of buildings. Buildings are often privately owned, while the land beneath them remains state or communal property, complicating registration procedures. Key challenges in property registration are incomplete digitalization and verification of property records, loss of documentation due to war, vulnerability of centralized electronic registries to cyberattacks, institutional weaknesses in the land cadaster, and remaining corruption risks in the field of registration.
  6. Systemic problems of judicial protection of property rights. Property owners face prolonged proceedings, challenges in establishing ownership, and increased costs for expert valuations and legal representation.
  7. The High Intellectual Property Court is currently not operational. Although the High Intellectual Property Court was established by law in 2017, it is not yet operational. These cases are handled through general commercial or civil court procedures without specialized judges, which adversely affects both the quality of legal protection and Ukraine’s investment appeal.
  8. Gaps in intellectual property protection. Ukrainian intellectual property legislation should be aligned with EU standards, particularly concerning trademark definitions, copyright protection, collective trademarks, and registration procedures. Although Law No. 815-IX (2020) and Law No. 4671-IX (2025) have been adopted, further alignment with the EU acquis is needed, including Directive 2004/48/EC, Regulation 608/2013, and provisions on copyright in the digital environment. The European Commission’s 2025 report recommends strengthening collective management organizations, improving royalty payments to rightsholders, and intensifying efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting.
  9. Insufficient protection of the property rights of foreigners and investors. The legislation does not fully guarantee foreign investors the same level of protection as Ukrainian citizens. This discourages foreign investment and fails to comply with EU standards for equal treatment of owners, regardless of citizenship.
  10. Alienation of property during martial law. The Law of Ukraine “On Transfer, Expropriation or Seizure of Property under the Legal Order of Martial Law or State of Emergency” permits alienation with compensation provided after, not before, the transfer. Compensation mechanisms for forcibly expropriated property remain inadequate, and their implementation continues to generate numerous complaints.
  11. Land market restrictions. Although the moratorium on land sale was lifted in 2021, restrictions on foreigners remain inconsistent with the EU’s free movement of capital (Chapter 4 of the acquis). The agricultural land market remains limited due to prohibitions on sales to foreigners and restrictions on land concentration.
  12. Corruption and raiding in the field of property registration. Manipulation of state registers, illegal property seizure (raiding), and limited register transparency continue to be widespread issues. The European Commission’s 2025 report states that restricting the transparency of public registers undermines anti-corruption efforts. The Good Faith Acquirer Act (2025) worsens the issue by prohibiting the return of property after 10 years of use, even if the property was acquired illegally. Environmental organizations state that it legalizes the seizure of forests, coastal areas, and lands designated for nature conservation.
  13. Challenges to protecting property rights during criminal proceedings and restrictions imposed by law enforcement agencies during investigative actions. Challenges to protecting property rights are highlighted in the ECtHR case “Koval and Others v. Ukraine” (over 20 cases) and in other court judgments. It is not possible to challenge the legality of investigative actions conducted against third parties. Issues include disproportionate property seizures in criminal proceedings, insufficient remedies for third parties affected by seizures or arrests, and extended storage of seized property without adequate oversight.

What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:

  • Align constitutional and civil law safeguards of property rights with EU standards. The Constitution of Ukraine and the Civil Code should be supplemented with a clear list of grounds for permissible interference with property rights, based on necessity and proportionality. They should also require fair and timely compensation and provide an effective means of appeal for individuals whose property rights were restricted. Property rights must be equally protected for citizens of Ukraine, foreigners, and stateless persons.
  • Ensure that court decisions related to the protection of property rights are enforced. Follow the recommendations of the European Commission’s 2025 Report and pilot judgments in the Ivanov and Burmych cases and adopt legislation to improve the enforcement of court decisions. Implement a data-collection system for enforcement proceedings and strengthen liability for non-enforcement of decisions. For more details, see the separate section on non-enforcement of court decisions.
  • Establish objective evaluation criteria and responsibility for their violation. Establish legal, qualitative, and quantitative criteria for determining the market value of property subject to compulsory alienation. Implement a collegial process for valuation decisions. Introduce disciplinary, administrative, and criminal liability for deliberate undervaluation.
  • Launch the High Intellectual Property Court. Strengthen the competitive selection process of judges for the High Intellectual Property Court, ensure transparency and impartiality, and enhance the qualifications of judges currently handling relevant cases in general judicial proceedings.
  • Update intellectual property legislation. Align legislation with Directive 2004/48/EC and relevant EU trademark acts. Clarify the definition of a trademark, its use, and protection, including provisions for collective trademarks. Simplify and increase transparency in the registration process. Implement trade secret protection in accordance with the EU acquis. Authorize customs authorities to enforce intellectual property rights at the border as specified in Regulation 608/2013. Ensure a fair balance in the digital environment between the interests of rightsholders and the rights to the freedom of expression and access to information, as outlined in Articles 17(2) and 11 of the EU Charter.
  • Ensure equal protection of the property rights of foreigners and investors. Remove discriminatory provisions from the Constitution and legislation concerning non-citizens in property matters. Ensure that foreign individuals and investor companies receive property rights protection equivalent to EU standards, in line with the principles of non-discrimination and the free movement of capital.
  • Digitize property rights registers and services. Ensure full public access to registers of real rights for real estate and intellectual property. Continue to digitalize procedures for acquiring and terminating ownership.
  • Prohibit the confiscation of property without a court order. Confiscation of property is permitted solely based on a court decision in cases and to the extent established by law. During martial law, an alternative procedure may be used, but it must be clearly regulated and ensure prompt, fair compensation as soon as it is feasible. Temporary asset freezes, such as those imposed by sanctions, should not extend beyond the period necessary to enable potential confiscation. Sanctions must include a mechanism for judicial oversight of the validity of their application. State authorities must prove the “necessity” and “proportionality” of sanctions.
  • Gradually liberalize the land market. Prepare a roadmap to lift restrictions on foreign acquisition of agricultural land, ensuring compliance with the free movement of capital (as set out in Chapter 4 of the EU acquis). The implementation of the ECtHR judgment in “Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v. Ukraine” must be completed.
  • Strengthen the protection of private property rights when conducting investigative actions. Proceed with implementing the ECtHR judgment in the “Koval and others v. Ukraine” group of cases.
  • Repeal or amend Law No. 4292-IX (On the Good Faith Acquirer) to remove restrictions on returning illegally alienated property, including natural resources and land, to the state.

For a comprehensive overview of these issues and the rationale behind our recommendations, please refer to the research section, specifically the document available in Ukrainian: Property Rights.  If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.

Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the source is included. @ 2026 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Picture of Yana Bilas

Yana Bilas

lawyer, specialist in the field of international human rights protection, researcher