Lesia Bilovus, Oksana Homotiuk, Nataliia Khatniuk, Oleh Prostybozhenko, Nelli Pobiianska, Nataliia Huts
The article is focused on studying the genesis of civil liability of the state within legal relations of property restitution. The authors have characterized the genesis of civil liability of the state within legal relations of property restitution. On this basis the author has revealed the imperfect state of the Ukrainian legislation in the sphere of restoration of the rights of the repressed persons/peoples and persons who lost their property during the totalitarian communist regime, namely, the authors have proved that: 1) the status of property support/compensation to Crimean Tatars while their repatriation; 2) there is the set direct prohibition to compensate the value of nationalized/municipal real estate; 3) state-designated compensation is not applied to all repressed persons under the law on the rehabilitation of repressed persons/peoples; 4) the state has not formally assumed civil liability for deprivation of property, which is recognized as a form of repression. It has been stressed that full compensation among the repressed persons/peoples was received only by Crimean Tatars. Measures for providing land, housing, long-term loans, arrangement of socio-cultural infrastructure, compensation for travelling expenses and transportation of luggage, etc. have been developed towards them. The state’s policy on the return of Crimean Tatars has been defined as the compensation policy for the return of repatriated people to their homeland. The fact of compensation in this case is obvious, which makes it possible to correlate the actions of the state with legal relations of property restitution. It has been concluded that the lack of legal assessment of the state’s actions in the repatriation of the Crimean Tatar people is a certain gap in the legal science of Ukraine.