CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 20950/18 and 48434/18 Yuliy Eduardovych KOVALYOV against Ukraine and Svitlana Fedorivna KALYANOVA against Ukraine lodged on 17 April 2018 and 27 September 2018 respectively communicated on 23 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ complaints that they have been unable to recover deposits held in a private bank. The applicants held deposits in a private bank C. In 2014 the bank became insolvent and the Deposits Guarantee Fund, a State entity, became responsible for repaying the applicants’ deposits using its own funds. On various dates in 2016 the applicants were informed that the prosecutors had seized their accounts in the framework of a criminal investigation against third persons. According to the applicants, as of 2018 they did not receive back their deposits. The applicants, who rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, did not inform the Court about further developments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stemming from their inability to recover their deposits?   2.     Was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic , no. 38238/04, § 78, 9 October 2008, Ališić and Others v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 125, ECHR 2014)?   3.     Has the respondent State complied with its positive obligations under the said provision? Has it provided the applicant with an appropriate legal mechanism allowing it to assert his/her property rights (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 114, 3 April 2012, with further references)?