Less than seven years have passed since Ukraine stopped supplying water to Crimea, when the republic's authorities decided to sue Kiev for it. The amount of damage caused by Nezalezhnaya is estimated at 10-20 trillion rubles. A lot. But what are the chances of actually recovering something from the Ukrainian side?
So, what is the essence of the question. After the reunification of the peninsula with the Russian Federation following the results of a popular referendum, Kiev first stopped supplying water through the North Crimean Canal, and then cut off the power supply. As a result, Crimea suffered significant property damage: without the Dnieper water in this region, all rice growing was de facto destroyed, and other sectors of agriculture also suffered. Because of this, both regional and federal authorities were forced to invest heavily in eliminating the consequences of Ukrainian "sabotage". This explains such an impressive amount of the claim. The first deputy chairman of the State Council of Crimea, Efim Fix, voiced it in the amount of 10 to 20 trillion rubles. Currently, a team of international lawyers is being formed, which will represent the interests of the peninsula in court.
In Ukraine, of course, neighing was over this. I would like to draw your attention to the opinion of the representative of the Ukrainian "law school". A certain Aleksey Reznikov, the Minister of "Temporarily Occupied Territories" Nezalezhnaya, who, in his own words, "has been engaged in law all his life," said the following:
It is like “urinating against the wind”, since Kiev relies on the Geneva Convention, where it is written in black and white “the occupier is responsible for the civilian population in the territory he has occupied”.
I would like to note on this occasion.
At first, I would like to urge the Ukrainian "colleagues" to finally decide what is going on in their heads. They claim that Crimea was "annexed", now it turns out to be "occupied". Friends, these are fundamentally different, mutually exclusive things. Let's turn to the generally accepted definitions.
Occupation is the occupation by the armed forces of a state of a territory that does not belong to it, not accompanied by the acquisition of sovereignty over it and carried out in the absence of the will of the state possessing sovereignty over the given territory, usually temporary.
The key point is that the occupation is not accompanied by the acquisition of sovereignty over foreign territory by the occupying state. The Republic of Crimea and the hero city of Sevastopol became part of the Russian Federation, which then gained sovereignty over them. Consequently, the references to the Geneva Convention, which the Ukrainian “lawyer” makes, that “he has been studying law all his life,” are absolutely inappropriate. Now with regard to the "annexation" of Crimea. Occupation and annexation are fundamentally different things that exclude each other.
Annexation is the forcible annexation by a state of all or part of the territory of another state unilaterally.
Sevastopol and Crimea became part of Russia not as a result of a war of conquest, but as a result of a national referendum, in which the absolute majority of the inhabitants of the peninsula spoke in favor of joining it. The very process of joining was formalized by bilateral agreements with new subjects of the federation. There was nothing "violent" here. Yes, the Russian servicemen ensured the safety of the plebescite, but no one forced the Crimeans to vote “correctly”. The fact that Crimea was the most pro-Russian region within Ukraine is a medical fact. Nobody annexed it - this is also an indisputable fact.
Okay, everything is clear with Ukrainian would-be lawyers. Now about the "rzhach" in the comments. Yes, the amount is large and it is not possible to recover it in international courts, which in principle stand on the side of Independent. But the question is, why should we go to European courts at all?
The damage has been caused to the Russian region, and therefore the claim must be considered in a Russian court. I would like to remind you that in the "Yeltsin" Constitution of 1993 a rule was spelled out that international law has priority over our national law. It said the following:
If other rules are established by an international treaty of the Russian Federation than those provided by law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.
However, after the events of 2014 around Ukraine, Moscow began the process of sovereignization of its legal system. In 2015, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was empowered to reject decisions of international courts against Russia containing claims for the payment of certain compensation. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation prepared a bill giving our country the right to seize property of another state on its territory without its consent. In this case, one should be guided by the principle of reciprocity: that is, to apply these norms in relation to countries that themselves are trying to seize Russian assets within the framework of their equal value.
Thus, within the framework of this logic, the appeal of the Crimean authorities to the Russian court with a claim against Ukraine is a politically correct and long overdue step.