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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 77542/17 and 77551/17 Pavlo Pavlovych VOROBYOV against Ukraine and Mariya Pavlivna VYKHRYSTYUK against Ukraine lodged on 30 October 2017 and 30 October 2017 respectively communicated on 5 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the impossibility for the applicants to inherit a flat after their deceased mother due to the invalidation of the privatisation of that flat. The applicants are children and heirs of Ms M. who died in 2012. In 1968 Ms M. obtained a tenancy and in 1993 a title, through privatisation procedure, to a flat in Poltava. She was mentioned as its only owner, although since 1983 she had been living there together with her grand-daughter Ms Z. and later with the latter’s husband, Mr Z. It appears that during the privatisation procedure Ms M. designated them as “subtenants”. In her will of 2011 Ms M. passed the appartement on to the applicants and divided it between them. Upon Ms M.’s death Ms Z. and Mr Z. lodged a claim seeking the invalidation of the 1993 ownership certificate for the flat as well as of the will, arguing that Ms M. could not have privatised the disputed flat as a sole owner as they had been living there all together as a family. Both the local authorities from which the flat had been privatised and the applicants were parties to the above proceedings. After several re-examinations of the case, on 21 June 2017 the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases upheld the lower courts’ judgments as to the annulment of both the decision on privatisation of the apartment and Ms M.’s ownership certificate. The courts found that according to the domestic law as in force at the material time a status of “subtenant” had not existed and that the authorities had therefore erred in the examination of Ms M.’s application for privatisation as she and Ms Z. and Mr Z. must have been considered as family members and should have participated in the privatisation together. The courts rejected the claims regarding the invalidation of the will as ill-founded. During the proceedings the representative of the local authorities argued that such invalidation would have created a situation when a privatisation is invalidated after the death of the owner and the flat would remain in no one’s possession and could be either re-privatised or inherited. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the way the domestic courts invalidated their deceased mother’s title was unfair and deprived them of the possibility to inherit after her, while they were so entitled under her will. 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. 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 within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?