CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 30 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16989/15 MARKETTRANS, PP against Ukraine lodged on 26 March 2015 communicated on 10 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment of the applicant company’s property title to a Tourist Centre (Centre) due to the allegedly unlawful privatisation of the Centre by its previous owner, the limited liability company Kh. (Kh.). The applicant purchased the Centre in 2008. In 2011 the prosecutor lodged a claim on behalf of the State Property Fund (Fund) to return the Centre to the Fund, to annul the privatisation of the Centre and to annul purchase agreements between Kh. and the applicant company. The case was examined by the domestic courts on several occasions and by the final decision of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine of 28 October 2014 the claim of the prosecutor was satisfied in full. The applicant company complains about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 it in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant company?   2.     Could the applicant company claim and obtain compensation at the domestic level for the property that was taken from it?