CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.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 } Published on 19 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65239/14 Artem Rubenovych SAFAROV against Ukraine lodged on 23 September 2014 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the tax authorities to refund the applicant the overpaid income tax. The applicant concluded a sales agreement in respect of a plot of land with Ms P. and received a down payment. He paid the tax for the income he would have received from the sales agreement in question. Ms P. failed to pay the totality of the agreed price and the agreement was annulled. The applicant refunded the down payment to Ms P. and requested the tax authorities to return him the amount of income tax he had paid in relation to the annulled sales agreement. The tax authorities and courts rejected his request. The applicant complains of an unjustified interference with his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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? 2.     If so, was that interference lawful for the purpose of Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant within the meaning of that Article?