CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 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 3 July 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40214/16 Sergiy Mykolayovych KULYK against Ukraine lodged on 25 June 2016 communicated on 15 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of a land plot allocated to him by the local authorities in 2011 and which he had been using for farming based on courts’ decisions granting the prosecutor’s claims, submitted in 2013, to have that land returned to the State. The courts established that the applicant’s land plot was located within the statutory 2-kilometers water protection zone, and that a part of it had been previously granted for permanent use to the local forestry enterprise. The applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts’ decisions adopted in his case lacked reasoning. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards his complaint under Article 1 or Protocol No 1? In particular, did he have a possibility to claim or otherwise obtain a compensation for the losses suffered?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   3.     Was the interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?