CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } Published on 8 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 68435/17 and 10796/19 Olena Leonidovna MOSTOVYUK against Ukraine and Liliya Viktorivna KULKINA against Ukraine lodged on 16 August 2017 and 14 February 2019 respectively communicated on 21 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the allegedly unjustified retention of the money that the applicants deposited with the authorities as bail in respect of themselves or of a close relative charged with a corruption related offence. The applicants repeatedly requested the domestic authorities, including the courts, to return the money, mainly arguing that the preventive measure at issue had not been prolonged in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and that its application had never been reviewed. Their requests were refused mainly based on the fact that the criminal proceedings were pending and that the application of the preventive measure of bail, for which no time-limit had been set, had not been discontinued (see relevant details in the Appendix). The applicants complain mainly about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     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 applicants have a possibility of effectively challenging the continued retention of the money they had deposited as bail?     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth   Represented by The most recent decisions by the domestic courts refusing to return the money to the respective applicants 1. 68435/17 Mostovyuk v. Ukraine 16/08/2017 Olena Leonidovna MOSTOVYUK 1974   Vladyslav Viktorovych TATUNETS Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, 17/07/2017 2. 10796/19 Kulkina v. Ukraine 14/02/2019 Liliya Viktorivna KULKINA 1962   Oleksandr Sergiyovych SHADRIN Dzerzhynskyi District Court of Kharkiv, 21/09/2023