CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2023

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 30 January 2023   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 34511/14 and 34532/14 Vasiliy Korneyevich KOLESNICHENKO against Ukraine and Vadim Vasilyevich KOLESNICHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 1 April 2014 and 2 April 2014 respectively communicated on 13 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ complaint that the police unlawfully entered their apartment and did not prevent unknown persons from entering the apartment and stealing their property (Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1). They also complain about the length of the civil proceedings which they instituted against the police (Article 6 § 1). The first applicant is the second applicant’s father. Both applicants lived in the same apartment. On 1-3 November 1999 the second applicant’s ex-wife and two unknown persons entered the applicants’ apartment. The police arrived and entered the apartment without the applicants’ consent. The police did not prevent the unknown persons from entering the apartment and removing the applicants’ property. On 3 November 1999 the police seized the safety box from the apartment. In August 2001 the applicants instituted proceedings against the police seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage caused by unlawful entry into the apartment and seizure of the safety box, and stealing money and documents kept in the box. In particular, the first applicant claimed that the box contained a promissory note worth 49,000   United States dollars (USD). The second applicant claimed that the box contained his 9,000   Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) and his various documents. Later on, the applicants changed their claims and also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to them by the failure of the police to prevent the ex-wife and the unknown persons from entering the apartment and stealing the property. After five reconsiderations of the case, initiated by the applicants’ appeals, on 22 November 2012 the court awarded the applicant UAH 20,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage (approximately 1,923 euros (EUR)). A court of appeal upheld this decision in so far as the non-pecuniary damage is concerned and ordered the defendant to return to the second applicant UAH 9,000 stolen from the safety box. On 2   October 2013 the applicants’ cassation appeal was rejected by the Higher Specialised Court. The courts did not address the applicants’ complaint that they sustained pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage because of the failure of the police to prevent the unknown persons from removing property from their apartment. The applicants complain, invoking Article 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.1, that the police failed to protect their home from unauthorised entry and their property from being stolen. They also complain that the police entered their home without their consent. The applicants further complain, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the length of the judicial proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it purse a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   8 §   2? Did the domestic authorities comply with their procedural obligations under Article   8 of the Convention? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality 1. 34511/14 Kolesnichenko v. Ukraine 01/04/2014 Vasiliy Korneyevich KOLESNICHENKO 1935 Ukrainian 2. 34532/14 Kolesnichenko v. Ukraine 02/04/2014 Vadim Vasilyevich KOLESNICHENKO 1958 Ukrainian