CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 novembre 2018

.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 } .sABFE806F { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }   Communicated on 15 November 2018   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 75237/10 and 75295/10 BRYG-A, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 2 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern allegedly defective court proceedings (two separate sets) regarding a dispute between the applicant company and a State company controlled by the Ministry of Coal Industry over the validity of a sales contract dated 12 September 2003, pursuant to which the applicant company purchased a plot of land from a local authority that was acting ultra vires , as was later established by the domestic courts. In particular, the proceedings allegedly fell short of the requirements of legal certainty, equality of arms and the delivery of a reasoned decision under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, since the courts refused – allegedly in the absence of any compelling reasons – to apply the one-year limitation period to claims concerning the validity of the disputed contract lodged in August 2006 and April 2008. The General Prosecutor’s Office and the Sebastopol prosecutor’s office intervened on behalf of the State company in both sets of proceedings, which allegedly gave the latter an unfair advantage vis-à-vis the applicant company. Moreover, the courts allegedly failed to deal with the applicant company’s principal arguments regarding the merits of the dispute, which were specific, pertinent and supported by reliable evidence. As a result of those proceedings, in which the final decisions were taken by the Higher Administrative Court on 1   July   2010 and by the Higher Commercial Court on 17 August 2010, the applicant company was allegedly unlawfully and disproportionately deprived of its property – the land at issue and the buildings which it had erected on that land – for which it received no compensation.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Did the intervention of the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Sebastopol prosecutor’s office in the applicant company’s cases undermine the appearance of a fair trial and the principle of equality of arms (see, for instance, Menchinskaya v. Russia , no. 42454/02, §§ 35-40, 15   January 2009)? (b)     Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the alleged disregard for the limitation period applicable in the applicant company’s cases (see, for instance, Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova , no.   39815/07, § 51, 16 July 2009)? (c)     Did the courts   give adequate reasons for their decisions concerning the merits of the applicant company’s cases (see, for instance, Bochan v.   Ukraine , no. 7577/02, § 83-84, 3 May 2007)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of that provision? 3.     Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine , no. 22603/02, §§   58 ‑ 61, 22 November 2007)?