CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 18 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40633/15 FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS OF CHERNIGIV REGION against Ukraine lodged on 11 August 2015 communicated on 29 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged deprivation of real estate property that the applicant organisation had owned for decades as a legal successor of the regional trade union organisation created during Soviet times and had its title duly formalised by the local authorities. The case, initiated upon the prosecutor’s claims, was several times re ‑ examined, with the courts of different levels of jurisdiction reaching different conclusions. By the final judgment of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine of 19 February 2015 the prosecutor’s claims to have the disputed property returned to the State were granted, and the applicant’s title was invalidated. In that respect the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about an alleged unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of property which precludes its statutory activities. 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, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that Article and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine, no. 5876/15, 9 October 2018)?