CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43548/18 Sakhraddin Ali-ogly MAMEDOV against Ukraine lodged on 31 August 2018 communicated on 6 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dispute between private parties over the rights to land. In 2009 the applicant bought a house in a village. It appears that he also received a right of use to a plot of land measuring 500 square meters allocated to the previous owners since 1963. In 2013 the applicant discovered that his neighbour’s plot of land, formalised as private property, overlapped with his land so that to cover part of his house. The applicant’s claim to set aside the local authorities’ decisions regarding his neighbour’s land and his title were rejected by the courts. Despite numerous evidence that the applicant had provided to the courts to confirm his rights to the land in question, including a certificate from the special village’s land register ( запис із земельно-шнурової книги ), the courts found that the applicant failed to prove his claim. The courts did not specifically address the question that the boundaries of the neighbour’s land were overstepping on to the applicant’s house. The final judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 3 May 2018. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts disregarded his pertinent arguments and evidence submitted. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the approach applied by the domestic courts essentially deprived him of the possibility to freely enjoy his property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the reasons provided by the domestic courts sufficient and did they address all applicant’s arguments?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? 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?