CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 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 } Published on 22 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 29184/15 and 44078/16 Anatoliy Grygorovych BONDAR against Ukraine and Nadiya Volodymyrivna BONDAR against Ukraine lodged on 8 June 2015 and 6 July 2016 respectively communicated on 4 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the annulment of property titles to the land plots belonging to the applicants because of allegedly unlawful actions of third parties giving those land plots to the applicants. In August 2010 the Sumy Lebedynska Local Administration decided to give the applicants land plots for privatisation. On 6 December 2010 their title to those land plots was registered. On 28 February 2014 the prosecutor lodged two claims in the interests of the State seeking annulment of the respective decisions of the local Administration and annulment of the applicants’ title to the land in question. By decisions of the courts of three instances (5 June, 6 August and 17 December 2014 in respect of the first applicant and 19 November 2014, 19 March 2015 and 21 October 2015 in respect of the second applicant) the claims of the prosecutor were allowed in full. The applicants allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was it in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicants? Could the applicants claim and obtain compensation at the domestic level for the property that was taken from them?