CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65890/13 Pavlo Yuriyovych GRYNENKO against Ukraine lodged on 4 October 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a property dispute between private parties. On 18 August 2003 the applicant concluded an investment contract with “LDBK no. 2”, a construction company, under which the applicant would finance the construction of a flat (no. 8) in an apartment building and in exchange become the owner of that flat on completion of the works. On 30 December 2005, without the applicant’s consent, “LDBK no.   2” entered into a contract with “LDBK”, another company, which, in turn, on 4   January 2006 signed an investment contract with K., following which the flat no. 8 was reassigned to the latter. Following rounds of court proceedings, by a final decision of 3 June 2010 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine (“the HCCU”) confirmed the applicant’s property rights over the flat no. 8 under the investment contract of 18 August 2003. K. was not a party to these proceedings. By another final decision of 11 August 2011 the HCCU declared the investment contract of 30 December 2005 null and void ab initio as at the time of its conclusion there had been a valid investment contract in respect of the same flat no. 8 between the applicant and “LDBK no. 2”. By a final decision of 9 April 2013, in the proceedings instituted by K. against “LDBK”, to which the applicant was a third party, the Higher Specialized Court confirmed K.’s title to flat no. 8 and rejected the applicant’s claim seeking the annulment of the 2006 contract between K. and “LDBK” and K.’s eviction from the disputed flat. In doing so, the court rejected the applicant’s argument that under the investment contract of 2003, as confirmed by the final decision of Higher Specialized Court in 2010, he had the title to the disputed flat. It noted, inter alia , that K. had concluded her investment contract in 2006, that is earlier than the date on which the applicant’s title to that flat was confirmed by the courts (2010). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the courts proceedings which ended up with a final decision of the Higher Specialised Court on 9 April 2013 were unfair. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 he alleges that as a result of the above proceedings he was unlawfully deprived of his possessions, namely his title to the flat no. 8, which had been earlier confirmed by a final judicial decision in his favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the court proceedings in which K. obtained title to the flat no. 8 and to which the applicant was a third party fair for the purposes of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Were the reasons given by the courts in reply to specific, pertinent and important arguments by the applicant, including on the validity of his investment agreement of 2003 and res   judicata nature of the court judgment of 3 June 2010 delivered in his favour, free from arbitrariness?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference lawful and proportionate?