CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 mai 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 75 May 2005 Danilyuk v. Ukraine (dec.) - 5326/02 Decision 19.5.2005 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Alleged loss of money on account of the authorities’ delay in reimbursing a Chernobyl victim for her expenses for the purchase of a new apartment: inadmissible   After the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, the applicant and her family moved from their hometown, situated 100   km from Chernobyl, and settled in another city in Crimea. In 1996, the applicant paid part of the price of the house that the authorities provided her with. She also spent money on it to have it repaired. In 1999 she applied to the authorities for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred in acquiring the apartment, to which she was entitled as a victim of the Chernobyl disaster. By September 2000 the applicant had received, in three instalments, a sum by way of reimbursement of the cost of purchasing the apartment. Alleging that the sum received did not cover the amount that she had to spend on the repair of the apartment and took no account of the effects of inflation, the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of Chernobyl Affairs. The courts rejected the claim. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a civil but a public law dispute, and that the sum to be reimbursed could not be based on the actual expenses and losses of the applicant but had to be determined on the basis of relevant domestic legislation. The applicant’s apartment in her hometown (which was leased from the State) is currently occupied by her son. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government’s objection (lack of victim status): The Court considered that the applicant’s allegations that she had lost money on account of the authorities’ delay in reimbursing her expenses for an apartment was sufficient to demonstrate that she had a personal interest at stake, and could therefore claim to be a victim. The present case was to be distinguished from Akkus v. Turkey , in which the State’s failure to compensate inflation losses, resulting from a delay in reimbursing the applicant’s estate, was found to be in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.1. In the present case the applicant had never owned her apartment in her hometown and, moreover, after she had moved to the Crimea, her entitlement had been taken up by her son who currently occupied this apartment. Moreover, two instances of domestic courts had found that the sum reimbursed to the applicant had been calculated correctly by the authorities and that she had received the full amount to which she was entitled by relevant legislation. These courts had stated that full compensation for inflation losses as a result of the delay in reimbursement was not recognised under Ukrainian legislation. The Court found no reasons to question this assessment of the domestic courts. The proceedings initiated by the applicant did not, therefore, concern “existing possessions”, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.1 or any “legitimate expectation”: incompatible ratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes