CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 2023

.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 } Published on 15 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42118/14 UKRPROFTUR, PAT against Ukraine lodged on 26 May 2014 communicated on 24 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the judicial proceedings initiated by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Chernivtsi Region on behalf of the State Property Fund in 2011 claiming that the State was the rightful owner of the Bukovyna recreation facilities comprising several buildings with annexes which at the time the applicant company possessed through its subsidiary company Chernivtsitourist that was its co-defendant in the proceedings. The prosecutor’s claim was allowed in full by the judgment of the Chernivtsi Region Commercial Court of 12   January 2012 and ultimately upheld by the final decision of the Higher Commercial Court of 16 December 2013. The applicant company complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that the domestic courts disregarded, in violation of the principle of legal certainty, the fact that the three-year limitation period for the prosecutor’s claim had expired long before 2011. In particular, the authorities were aware of and involved in the transfer of the disputed property by the Federation of Independent Trade Unions to the applicant company’s share capital in October 1991 and the lawfulness of the relevant legal transactions was confirmed by the final judgment of the Higher Arbitration Court of 20   January 1997 dismissing the State Property Fund’s challenge to those transactions. The applicant company also complains that in the present case the courts in fact re-examined, without any compelling or substantial grounds, the matters finally decided by the judgment of the Higher Arbitration Court of 20   January 1997 and failed to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it further complains that the outcome of the proceedings led to the unlawful and disproportionate deprivation of its property. 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 courts   give adequate reasons for their decisions concerning the applicant company’s case (see, for instance, Bochan v.   Ukraine , no.   7577/02, §§ 83-84, 3 May 2007)? (b)     Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the domestic courts’ alleged disregard for the limitation period applicable in the applicant company’s case (see, for instance, Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova , no. 39815/07, § 51, 16 July 2009)? (c)     Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the domestic courts’ alleged disregard for the res   judicata effect of the judgment of the Higher Arbitration Court of 20   January 1997 (see, for instance, Kehaya and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   47797/99 and 68698/01, §§   66-70, 12   January 2006)? 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? (a)     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? (b)     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)?