CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 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 15 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45364/20 Tetyana Viktorivna KYRYLLOVA against Ukraine lodged on 30 September 2020 communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Domestic courts found irregularities of a public auction conducted by the State Bailiffs’ Service as part of enforcement proceedings against the applicant for her failure to repay a mortgage loan. Among other things, the bailiffs had sold not only the applicant’s mortgaged house, but also the land on which the house stood despite the latter not being mortgaged. While the auction in question was annulled by the domestic courts, the applicant’s claim for damages was rejected by the courts of three instances. The applicant complains of a disproportionate interference with her property rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, has the interference been in compliance with the requirements of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Ljaskaj v. Croatia , no. 58630/11, §§   62-70, 20   December 2016)?   2.     In particular, has the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property been respected (see , for example, Akshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan , no.   30352/11, §   56, 2 February 2023)?