CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 5 juin 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 24 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17880/17 EKO-KOMUNENERGO, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 3 February 2017 communicated on 5 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of property of the applicant company at the request of the prosecutor. The property previously belonged to the State. In 2006 a State enterprise mortgaged certain real estate to secure its credit obligations towards a private bank; to this end a special permission was obtained from the Ministry of Industrial Policy. Following a judgment of 2007, the foreclosure of the mortgaged property was ordered due to the inability of the enterprise to honour its obligations. In 2008 the applicant company bought the property in the framework of the mortgage enforcement procedure; it took out a credit from the same bank to pay for the purchase. In 2015 the prosecutor, acting in the interests of the State, initiated several sets of proceedings with a view to having the mortgage agreement and its enforcement, the sale and purchase agreement and the applicant company’s title declared invalid, as the property in question belonged to an enterprise from the defence sector and thus could not have been legally disposed of in the first place. By the final judgment of 27 September 2016, the High Commercial Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts which allowed the prosecutor’s claims and returned the property into the State ownership. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of property that it had acquired in good faith. In particular, it complains about the lack of any compensation for the losses it had incurred because of the deprivation in question. 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. Has the 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 (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, could the applicant company claim or otherwise obtain any compensation or other form of remedy on account of the annulment of its title?