CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39071/08 Valentyna Demydivna STRYZH against Ukraine lodged on 6 August 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Valentyna Demydivna Stryzh, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Zaporizhzhya. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 December 2001 the applicant bought a flat in the city of Zaporizhzhya. On 17 May 2005 the applicant joined ongoing proceedings concerning a civil dispute between the seller of the flat and other interested parties. The applicant joined the proceedings as a co-defendant because the claimants made additional claims seeking to invalidate the contract of purchase of the flat concluded by the seller and the applicant in 2001. On 19 October 2005 the Zavodskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya found, inter alia , that the contract of purchase of the flat was invalid. It further found that Messrs. V.S. and I.S. were the owners of that flat. The applicant appealed. On 13 December 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Region Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 19 October 2005 as unlawful and dismissed the claims as unsubstantiated. That decision was appealed in cassation by the claimants. The applicant was not notified of the cassation appeal and was not aware that the cassation proceedings were opened. On 3 April 2008 the Odesa Region Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, held a hearing in the case. Having considered the cassation appeal and the case file, the cassation court quashed the decision of 13   December 2005 as unfounded and upheld the decision of 19 October 2005. On 2 May 2008 the applicant found out about that hearing and the decision of the cassation court. On 3 July 2009 V.S. instituted court proceedings seeking applicant’s eviction from the flat. On 21 April 2010 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya ordered the applicant’s eviction. That decision was not appealed against. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings were unfair as the courts wrongly applied domestic law and, in particular, did not respect her right of effective participation in the cassation proceedings which resulted in quashing of the decision given in her favour. 2.     She also complains under the same provision that the length of the civil proceedings was excessive. 3.     The applicant complains that by the decision of the cassation court she was deprived of her property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the proceedings before the court of cassation?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in a manner which is compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?