CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5687/07 Yuriy Volodymyrovych BAKULIN against Ukraine lodged on 9 January 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Yuriy Volodymyrovych Bakulin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 23 February 2004 the applicant deposited 50,001 US dollars to the State Import-Export Bank (“the bank”) until 29 March 2005. According to the deposit contract the applicant could receive the deposited sum with interest at any time on two days’ notice. On 17 November 2004 the applicant allegedly made an advance payment of 70,000 Ukrainian gryvnias (UAH) to Kh. in order to buy a house from the latter. He had to pay the remaining sum on 30 November 2004. On 30 November 2004 the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine issued the decision no. 576 “On temporary measures in banking activity” by which it was forbidden to return the deposits before the end of their term. It was noted that the decision entered into force from its signature date. It was not indicated until what date the measures would be in force. On the same date the applicant requested from the bank his deposit in full. On 2 December 2004 the bank refused the applicant’s request. On 29 March 2005 the applicant received his deposit plus the relevant interest. On 22 April 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv against the bank claiming UAH   115,123.09 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant stated that the decision no. 576 was not valid since it had not been registered by the Ministry of Justice as required by the law in force and contradicted other laws. The applicant claimed UAH 21,735.85 in late payment penalty, 16,007.67 in inflation loss, UAH 2,379.57 in interest for using his deposit, UAH 70,000 in advance payment made to Kh. and UAH 5,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 2 August 2005 the Golosiyivskyy District Court found against the applicant. It held that the decision no. 576 at the material time had been a valid act, which had been nevertheless annulled by the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine on 29 December 2004 by its decision no. 692. Therefore, the applicant could have received his deposit after 1 January 2005 which he did not demand. Moreover, the applicant had an opportunity to make a bank transfer of the sum necessary for his house purchase from his deposit as it was permitted by the National Bank of Ukraine explanatory letter of 6 December 2004. The applicant did not submit a copy of the original house sales contract. On 23 January 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 7 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. This decision was mailed to the applicant on 10 July 2006. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     National Bank of Ukraine Act, 1999 In accordance with Article 56 of the Act, the National Bank is obliged to adopt various decisions within its competence. They comprise of, inter alia , decisions of the Board of the National Bank, instructions and rules. The decisions of the National Bank of Ukraine shall be registered by the Ministry of Justice and enter into force in accordance with the law in force. 2.     Decree of the President of Ukraine on State registration of decisions of the ministries and other bodies of executive power, 1992 Since 1 January 1993 decisions which were adopted by ministries and other main State bodies and which concern rights, freedoms and lawful interests of citizens are to be registered by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. They enter into force in 10 days after the registration unless they provide for another later date. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention that the national courts failed to effectively protect his property rights. He further complains about an unlawful interference with his property rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If yes, has the applicant been limited in the use of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?