CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20591/17 Oleksandr Stepanovych DOVGAL against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3   March 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the inadequate reasoning in a court decision were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (inadequate reasoning in a court decision) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly inadequate reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions in the proceedings, the subject-matter of which is in detail described in the appended table, is inadmissible. In particular, the applicant argued that he had been a party to two, closely linked, sets of the proceedings (administrative and civil) and that in the civil proceedings the courts failed to take into consideration the conclusions of the administrative courts, thus having failed to give reasoned judgments. The Court, however, notes that while the subject matter of the two sets of the proceedings was intrinsically linked, in the civil proceedings the applicant claimed the return of the guns to him from their current owners allegedly with the aim to dispose of them by gifting or selling the guns to his civil wife and friends. The domestic courts found that since the moment when his gun license was cancelled on 29 December 2008, the applicant was not the owner of the guns in question anymore and therefore could not claim their return. It is primarily for the national courts to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The Court should not act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, §   116, 15 March 2018; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§   61 ‑ 65, 5 February 2015). It appears, indeed, that the domestic authorities breached the procedure for seizing the guns from the applicant. However, the domestic courts, while dismissing the applicant’s civil claim, considered the fact that he no longer held the gun licence. He had been transferred money from the sale of the guns, with the amount, as appears, corresponding to the guns’ value. The property rights of the new bona fide owners of the guns were also taken into account. Therefore, the decisions of the civil courts not to return the guns to the applicant and not to award him non-pecuniary damage were well-reasoned and do not appear unlawful or disproportionate. Furthermore, there is no contradiction between the judgments of the administrative and those of the civil courts since the subject-matter of two cases was different. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decision) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Subject matter of the domestic proceedings Final domestic decision Date Name of the court 20591/17 03/03/2017 Oleksandr Stepanovych DOVGAL 1958 The applicant legally possessed several guns. In June 2008 he was convicted for committing a crime and was serving his sentence between October 2008 and March 2009. In November 2008 the applicant’s civil wife received a licence for one of the guns. In December 2008 the police informed her that she had to render other guns to the police which she did. On 29 December 2008 the police cancelled the applicant’s gun licence since he had been convicted of a crime and decided to dispose of the guns. Two guns were subsequently sold via a weapon store, and one was destroyed. In May 2009, after his release, the applicant requested the police to transfer the guns to his civil wife and friends, but the police refused as the guns had already been transferred to the weapon store for a sale. In June 2009 and in March 2012 the weapon store informed the applicant that he could receive the money due to him from the sale of the guns, but the applicant failed to appear. Ultimately, on 2 April 2013 the weapon store sent the money by a mail transfer to the applicant, but he refused to receive the transfer. Meanwhile, the applicant filed a claim with the Dnipropetrovsk Circuit Administrative Court seeking cancellation of the decision of the police of 29 December 2008 in the part of ordering the sale of the guns as unlawful. By a judgment of 22 August 2013 (upheld on appeal), the Administrative Court decided that the police had breached the procedure. In particular, according to the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior no.   622 of 21 August 1998, after cancelling a gun license, the police shall ask a former owner about the way they would like to dispose of the guns (to sell or to gift them, with the right to choose a specific person to do so), and a former owner shall have 15 days to inform the police about their decision. The court found that the police failed to adhere to the above procedure.   The applicant also instituted civil proceedings seeking return of the guns from their current owners and compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the police and the weapon store. On 25 November 2015 the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk rejected the applicant’s claim having found, inter alia, that, since his gun license had been cancelled and that decision remained in force, the applicant could not be considered the owner of the guns and, therefore, claim their return. As to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court found that the applicant had had a right to claim it within the administrative proceedings (which he failed to do). On 30 March 2016 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal delivered a decision rejecting the applicant’s appeal. High Specialised Civil and Criminal Court, 05/09/2016