CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 mars 2021

.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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 1 March 2021 Published on 22 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52299/14 Svitlana Vasylivna LYSAK against Ukraine lodged on 15 July 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about destruction, in alleged defiance of domestic courts’ orders barring such destruction, of her sales equipment installed on municipal land. In particular, she complains that, while the domestic courts had held that the municipal authorities’ decisions to proceed with demolition (which had taken place on 28 May 2009) had been unlawful, they refused to award her damages. In doing so, they relied, in part, on the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against an official of the municipal company who had participated in the demolition, for dereliction of duty, and that it would be appropriate for the applicant to seek compensation within the framework of those proceedings. However, by the time the High Administrative Court delivered, on 22   January 2014, its final decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages, those criminal proceedings against the official had been discontinued without charges.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did that interference comply with the requirements of that provision?