CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2024

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42928/17 Ruslan Viktorovych MOSHIN against Ukraine lodged on 10 June 2017 communicated on 23 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of the commercial premises owned by the applicant. In 2013, together with another person, the applicant bought a commercial building from a third person. He obtained technical documentation for the building as well as a State Act confirming his title. The building was allocated an official address. In October 2015, upon an order by the Kyiv City Council, the building was demolished as temporary construction erected without special permission. The applicant sought to prevent the demolition but to no avail. He was also unsuccessful in the court proceedings initiated to challenge the demolition order as unlawful and obtain compensation. By the final judgment of the High Administrative Court of 11 January 2017 the applicant’s claims were rejected. The domestic courts found that the building at stake had been a temporary, – and unlawful (as the applicant had no permit for its erection and use), – construction, and, therefore, it could be demolished upon the decision of the local authorities. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unlawful demolition of his property and the lack of any compensation for it.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     If so, has that interference been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR   1999-V)?