CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15124/16 Oleksandr Grygorovych CHEREDA against Ukraine lodged on 3 March 2016 communicated on 24 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant to reclaim his property, a plot of land, he had received from the local authorities, and which had been appropriated by third parties. In June 2002 the applicant obtained, free of charge, a plot of land from the Pidhirtsi Village Council of Kyiv Region. He received a State Act proving his title. In 2007 the plot of land was allocated by the same authority to a certain Sh.; it was later sold on numerous occasions. In the first set of proceedings initiated by the applicant, the courts annulled the State Act issued to Sh., but refused to invalidate the sale contracts and titles of the other landowners as those claims had to be submitted as vindication claims in separate proceedings. The courts established that the local authorities acted within their powers when deciding on the land allocation issues; that the land plot at issue had been delimited on-site, and that the further allocation of the land to third parties had been based on forged documents as established by the verdict against an official of the village council. They concluded that there had thus been no legal grounds to “consider the applicant’s ownership rights as terminated”. In the second set of proceedings, instituted against the last owner of the land, the applicant’s vindication claim was rejected. As it appears from the courts’ judgments, the local authorities’ competence to allocate the land and the question of the land’s delimitation on-site had been examined anew; some new elements pertaining to the validity of the applicant’s title had also been examined. Overall, the courts found that the applicant could not assert property rights over the disputed plot of land. The applicant’s cassation appeal was rejected on 29 October 2014 by the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases, and his further appeal for review was rejected by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 1 September 2015. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his property had been unlawfully transferred to a third person, without compensation and without any ground of public interest. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     Has the State discharged its positive obligation to afford the necessary procedural guarantees for the applicant to assert his property rights ( mutatis mutandis , Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine , no. 48553/99, §§ 96-97, ECHR   2002‑VII)?