CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Communicated on 30 March 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 4809/10 Mykhaylo Yevgenovych GRAFOV against Ukraine lodged on 12 January 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mykhaylo Yevgenovych Grafov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in the city of Chernivtsi, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In October 2002 the Zalishchanskyi District Court issued a writ of enforcement in a case against a private company U. Under that writ in March 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service seized some property which belonged to a private company U. The seized property included an industrial construction (a 2,000 sq. meters metallic shed) worth 98,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH). In December 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service concluded an agreement with a private company M. The latter had to hold an auction in order to sell the seized shed against a payment of 13% of the sum received at the auction. On 3 April 2006 the applicant participated in this auction and bought the above construction for UAH 26,000 (around 4,000 euros). The applicant submitted bills according to which he had paid the above amount in full. On 10 August 2006 the applicant sold the shed to a private person T. for 50,000 UAH. However, later it turned out that the construction in question belonged to a private person S. In October 2006 the sales contract with T. was annulled. The applicant and T. signed an act that the applicant had returned the money to T. On 23 November 2006 the Zalishchanskyi District Court, following S.’s complaint lodged against the bailiffs and the applicant, found that the bailiffs had unlawfully seized and sold the shed at the auction. In March 2007 the applicant was given victim status in the criminal proceedings against the bailiff officials. It was noted that he had not been reimbursed the money paid at the auction. On 2 August 2007 the same court sentenced bailiff D. to a fine for excess of power which caused grave consequences. In the text of the decision of 2   August 2007 the applicant is, however, referred to as a witness. In May 2008 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 1 December 2008 the Sadgirskyy District Court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 60,262. On 12 March 2009 the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court held that since the applicant was not a party to the enforcement proceedings the bailiff’s action did not cause him any damage. According to the court, the applicant also failed to show that the industrial construction had been seized from him without any compensation. The applicant appealed in cassation stating that he was recognised as a victim in the criminal proceedings against bailiff D. He also referred to the court decision of 23 November 2006 which had confirmed that the shed was the property of S. The applicant further noted that the money paid at the auction had not been reimbursed. On 23 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about deprivation of property and failure to award him compensation for damages. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   3.     If so was it in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?