CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 12486/12 and 45831/12 Vladimir Anatolyevich Degtyar against Ukraine and Viktoriya Oleksandrivna SLOBODYANYUK against Ukraine lodged on 13 December 2011 and 13 July 2012 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant was convicted of fraud. In convicting him, the domestic criminal courts (final decision of the Supreme Court of 30 July 2009) rejected the victim’s claim for damages as unsubstantiated. Later, in separate civil proceedings (final decision of the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of 25 July 2011), the courts nevertheless awarded the victim damages even though, according to the applicant, the standard of proof was the same and the judgment on the civil claim in the criminal case had the force of res judicata . The second applicant obtained a judgment dividing her and her former husband’s marital property following their divorce. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court and became final on 16 June 2004. On 15   February 2012 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment in “extraordinary review” proceedings because it contradicted the developments in the domestic courts’ case-law which had occurred in 2007 ‑ 2010. The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the first applicant also under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the domestic courts’ decisions in their cases breached the principle of legal certainty. The second applicant also complains that the proceedings in her case were excessively lengthy.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In both applications, did the applicants have a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular was the principle of legal certainty breached (see, for example, Tregubenko v.   Ukraine , no. 61333/00, §§ 34-38, 2 November 2004, and Yushchenko and   Others v. Ukraine , nos. 73990/01 and 3 others, §§ 64 and   65, 15 July 2010)?   2.     In application no. 45831/12, was the length of the civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine , no.   41984/98, §§ 77-87, 9 November 2004, and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine , no. 53427/09, §§ 88-91, 27 June 2019)?   3.     In application no. 12486/12, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia , no. 33468/03, §§ 44-50, 10   January 2012, and mutatis mutandis Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia , no. 39544/05, §§   250-52, 12 December 2013)?