CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 19 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31211/14 AZALIYA, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 10 April 2014 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of a building owed by the applicant company since 1995. The building was constructed in 1965 on a plot of land belonging to the State. The applicant company leased that plot from the State and used the building as a café. The land lease contract was subject to prolongation. According to the applicant company, the city council failed to allow its latest prolongation request lodged in 2012. On 26 September, and 6 and 7 November 2012 the city council decided to renovate certain areas of the city and ordered the demolition of a number of “unauthorised” constructions, including the aforementioned building. The relevant act stated, as the reason for the inclusion of the building into the list, that the applicant company had not provided documents confirming its title to the building and that the land lease contract had expired. On 8   November 2012 the building was demolished. The applicant company challenged the council’s decisions before the administrative courts and claimed compensation for damage. It submitted, inter alia , that it had a registered title to the building at issue. The claim was rejected by the courts, with the final judgment given by the Higher Administrative Court on 26   December 2013. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complains about the demolition of its building and the lack of compensation for that.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1?   2.     If so, was it in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1? Was it proportionate in terms of that Article?