CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56191/09 Igor Valentynovych UVAROV against Ukraine lodged on 13 October 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the allegedly prolonged (for over two years) non-enforcement and the eventual annulment, in the proceedings upon an extraordinary appeal of a prosecutor which ended on 15   November 2013, of the judgment of the Desnyanskyy District Court of 14 September 2007, which had the effect of res iudicata and by which the State Treasury was ordered to pay the applicant compensation for lost property. Allegedly, there was no acceptable justification for the annulment of the judgment. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, were the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty respected as regards the annulment of the judgement of the Desnyanskyy District Court of 14 September 2007?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the annulment of the judgement of the Desnyanskyy District Court of 14 September 2007?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as interpreted by the Court?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the State Treasure’s alleged failure to enforce the judgement of the Desnyanskyy District Court of 14   September 2007 during the period it was enforceable?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of prolonged non-enforcement of the judgement of the Desnyanskyy District Court of 14   September 2007, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?