CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 18 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56181/15 Oleksiy Valeriyovych NAYDYONOV and Olga Igorivna VEDUTENKO against Ukraine lodged on 3 November 2015 communicated on 30 August 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case mainly concerns the allegedly lengthy and deficient investigation into a criminal interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions by private individuals, as well as the protracted seizure of the applicants’ assets as material evidence in the related criminal proceedings. While the applicants rely on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, the application falls to be examined under the last-mentioned provision only. In late 2013 and early 2014 the applicants, then owners of a vehicle leasing company, leased two vans and a truck to certain T. and O. In May 2014 the applicants complained to the police that, as they had accidentally discovered, those vehicles had been sold to third parties on the basis of forged authority forms. A criminal investigation was launched into the matter. Later in May 2014 the two vans were located and attached as physical evidence in the proceedings. The police transferred them to the applicants for storage. The search for the truck is still going on. The criminal proceedings against T. and O., which were initiated in February 2016 and in the context of which the applicants lodged civil claims, remain pending before the first-instance court. The applicants brought administrative proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior alleging that the investigation authorities had failed to timely and duly respond to their numerous applications and enquiries. The domestic courts allowed that claim in part: while having accepted the applicants’ arguments, they rejected their claim for compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. Following the applicants’ complaints, the domestic authorities also admitted a number of other deficiencies and delays in the related criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the respondent State discharge its positive obligation under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide the applicants with effective remedies enabling them to seek to vindicate their rights following the fraudulent alienation of their vehicles to third persons? In particular, has there been an effective criminal investigation into the matter in compliance with that provision (see Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria , no. 21743/15, §§ 54-76, 8   November 2022; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino , no. 35511/20, §§   105 ‑ 08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine , no. 74663/17, §§   36, 37 and   55 ‑ 57, 19 January 2023)? Was it open to the applicants, if they considered that the criminal investigation in their case was ineffective, to institute separate civil proceedings against the alleged perpetrators, in the absence of a final decision in the criminal proceedings (compare, for example, Blumberga v. Latvia , no. 70930/01, §§ 65-73, 14 October 2008, and Abukauskai v. Lithuania , no. 72065/17, § 71, 25 February 2020)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the protracted seizure of their two vehicles as physical evidence within the related criminal proceedings, regard being had to those vehicles’ depreciation and loss of market value and the applicants’ inability to lease or sell them until the proceedings are completed (see, mutatis mutandis , JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania , no. 3330/12, §§   111-45, 5 November 2013)? If so, was it lawful and proportionate to one or more of the aims under the second paragraph of that provision?