CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 August 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57841/15 Nina Yuriyivna SATANINA against Ukraine lodged on 7 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to prolong the land lease on the land allocated for the construction of a multi-storey apartment building in which the applicant had invested her money and the subsequent suspension of the construction. Under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, she complains of an unlawful and disproportionate interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The last judgment in the applicant’s case was rendered by the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court on 28   May 2015.   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? In particular, does the present case concern existing possessions?   2.   In the affirmative, was the suspension of the construction of the multi-storey apartment building in which the applicant had invested money in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, did it impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant?