CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 70118/17 and 80617/17 Olena Petrivna LISUN against Ukraine and Oleg Valeriyovych SHVEDOV against Ukraine lodged on 19 September 2017 and 7 November 2017 respectively communicated on 5 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the invalidation of the applicants’ titles to property without compensation. In both applications the applicants bought from private persons the plots of land which had been initially privatised years before. The respective civil proceedings in both cases were initiated by the prosecutors who claimed the vindication of land back to the State. In ruling against the applicants, the domestic courts found that the initial privatisation had been unlawful as the land was either located in the water-protection zone or belonged to specially protected lands; it could not, therefore, be in private property and had to be returned. The final judgments were adopted on 26 April 2017 and 15   May 2017 respectively. No compensation or any other form of reparation was offered to the applicants. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of property.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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 applicants, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?