CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 11 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20532/16 Yuriy Yuriyovych ZVONAR against Ukraine lodged on 1 April 2016 communicated on 24 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation, upon the prosecutor’s claims, of three land plots he had bought from a local council for the construction and administration of recreational facilities. By a final judgment of 7 October 2015, the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases upheld the lower courts’ judgments allowing the prosecutor’s claim. The courts found, in particular, that as the local council had acted ultra vires , the sales contract and the applicant’s title had to be invalidated. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his property. 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 of the deprivation of property concerning his land plot? In particular, could he claim or otherwise obtain a compensation for the losses he suffered on account of the annulment of his title?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of that provision? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Kryvenkyy v.   Ukraine , no.   43768/07, 16 February 2017 and Bryg-A, TOV, v. Ukraine [Committee], no.   75237/10, 9 December 2021)?