CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 August 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18248/21 Oleg Bogdanovych KREKHOVETS against Ukraine lodged on 26 March 2021 communicated on 11 July 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate refusal of the Lviv Town Council’s department to compensate the applicant for the difference in the size of the basement that the department sold to him at public auction. The basement was auctioned as having the floor area of 138   square meters, whereas after the sale it was established that it was 122   square meters. The applicant’s compensation claim of around 200,000   Ukrainian hryvnias (the equivalent of around 6,500 euros at the material time) based on Article 678 of the Civil Code, which provided for the right to compensation and other forms of redress in case the “quality” of the purchased object “did not correspond to the contractual terms”, was dismissed by the final decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal of 19   October 2020. The courts held that the applicant had purchased the basement as such, not of a particular size, and the fact that its floor area was smaller than that indicated in the contract and the related technical documents did not prevent him from using it. The applicant complains of a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, did that interference meet the requirement of lawfulness, pursue a legitimate public or general interest and strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights? Did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for a summary of the relevant general principles, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 143-51, ECHR 2004-V, and Bistrović v.   Croatia , no. 25774/05, §§ 40-45, 31 May 2007, with further references)?