CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2024

.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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42402/17 SAN11, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 8 June 2017 communicated on 23 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the invalidation, upon the prosecutor’s claim, of the applicant-company’s title to the premises it had bought from the State. In 2011 the authorities agreed to lease certain non-residential premises in Kyiv to the applicant company. In 2013 the privatisation of those premises by the applicant-company was granted. During that procedure, different authorities and entities confirmed that the premises at stake were not subject to any limitations and could be privatised. The applicant company paid for the premises and obtained title to them. In 2015 a prosecutor instituted court proceedings seeking to have all decisions regarding the premises at stake, starting with the lease, declared invalid, as well the applicant’s title invalidated. While the local courts rejected the prosecutor’s claims, by the final judgment of 14 December 2016 the High Commercial Court of Ukraine reversed and granted them in full having found that the premises at stake belonged to “educational facilities” and were thus not subject to privatisation. On the issue of compensation to the applicant company the court noted that such compensation could only be possible in case of further privatisation of the property at stake and using the money obtained during such privatisation. The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as to unlawful deprivation of property without compensation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, has that interference been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?