CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34185/20 Zhanna Volodymyrivna KHABAL against Ukraine lodged on 3 July 2020 communicated on 28 August 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unjustified retention of the money (400,000 Ukrainian hryvnias – the equivalent of around 12,600 euros at the material time) that the applicant deposited with the authorities on 12   September 2017 as bail in respect of her husband charged with extortion. Since November 2017 the applicant repeatedly requested the authorities, including the courts, to return the money, mainly arguing that the preventive measure at issue, which had been imposed by the decision of the Khmelnytskyy Town Court of 8   September 2017, had not been prolonged in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and that its application had never been reviewed. Her requests were refused, most recently by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 17 May 2023, mainly for the reasons that the criminal proceedings were ongoing (since August 2022 before the Khmelnytskyy Town Court) and that the application of the preventive measure of bail, for which no time-limit had been set, had not been discontinued. The applicant complains mainly about a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her 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 (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and   Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 294-304, 28 June 2018; Uzan and Others v. Turkey , nos. 19620/05 and 3 others, §§ 212-16, 5   March 2019; and Kasilov v. Russia , no. 2599/18, §§ 46-52, 6 July 2021)? Did the applicant have a possibility of effectively challenging the continued retention of the money she had deposited as bail?