CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 6 January 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45763/20 Galyna Stepanivna NOGA against Ukraine lodged on 28 September 2020 communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s deprivation of property in favour of the State and the alleged impossibility to claim compensation in that respect. In 2008, based on a local court’s judgment, the Bryukhovychi Local Council transferred, by means of a sale agreement, several plots of land to company N. for construction of a residential complex with sports facilities. Later that year the applicant purchased one of the plots from company N. and obtained a title certificate to it. In 2010 the 2008 court judgment was quashed in the framework of extraordinary review as it was established that the land in question belonged to “forestry land” and could only be disposed of by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and not by the local authorities. Following that, the prosecutor initiated proceedings to reclaim the plots of land from their current owners. His action against the applicant was granted by the final judgment of the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine of 22 June 2016. Already in those proceedings it was known that company N. had been liquidated. The Cabinet of Ministers was subsequently registered as a new owner of the land in question. In 2017 the applicant instituted proceedings against the local council and the Cabinet of Ministers seeking to obtain compensation for having been deprived of her property. She argued, in particular, that because company N. had been liquidated, no claim could be raised against it. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claims having found that neither the local council (which had acted lawfully at the time, based on a court order) nor the State could be held responsible in the circumstances and that the applicant must have claimed damages from company N. as it was her counterpart in the sale contract. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention that she was deprived, without any compensation, of her property because of the mistake made by the authorities, that the courts disregarded her arguments (regarding the liquidation of company N.) and that she had no effective remedy at her disposal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     Has that interference been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and has it imposed 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)?