CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 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 } Published on 21 May 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 58785/15 Viktor Mykolayovych LEVCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 18 November 2015 communicated on 30 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the seizure of the applicant’s car within criminal proceedings in respect of third persons. On 28 May 2015 the traffic police stopped the applicant when he was driving the car purchased by him about a year earlier. Given that the car was noted in their records as wanted by the police, it was withheld and taken to a police pound. On 30 June 2015 an investigating judge of the Zhytomyr Bogunskyy District Court (“the Bogunskyy Court”) allowed an application by the investigator for the car seizure in the context of the ongoing criminal investigation into its earlier fraudulent appropriation by unidentified persons. The matter was examined without the applicant being notified, “given that there were sufficient indications of a real risk of tampering with the property or its destruction”. The applicant challenged the above ruling on appeal once its existence came to his knowledge. He noted that under the applicable legal provisions the investigator had been obliged either to seek a judicial seizure of the withheld property no later than within a day after its withholding or to immediately return it to the applicant. The applicant observed that the investigator had, however, applied for the car seizure more than a month after its withholding. The applicant further submitted that, regard being had to the car’s storage at the police pound, the judge’s reference to the supposed risks as the grounds for not informing the applicant of the hearing had been arbitrary. He also argued that the measure had been disproportionate. On 5 August 2015 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded, with no further assessment of his arguments. The applicant applied for the lifting of the seizure on many occasions. On 1 December 2016 the Bogunskyy Court allowed one of such applications in part. Although having upheld the prohibition on any alienation or encumbrance of the car, the judge ruled that it should be transferred to the applicant for storage. On 4 November 2019 the same court lifted the seizure. It noted that not a single investigative measure had been carried out within the criminal investigation in question since September 2016 and that no suspicion had been announced to anybody. The judge also referred to the fact that the applicant’s bona fide ownership of the car had never been questioned. The applicant complains that the seizure was arbitrary and disproportionate and thus in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He additionally relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alleging that the judicial rulings imposing that measure were not properly reasoned. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so:   Was the seizure of the car, of which the applicant had been a bona fide acquirer, lawful? Notably, were the relevant provisions of domestic law complied with (see East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , no. 19336/04, §   167, 23 January 2014, with further references)?   Was the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property respected (see , for example, Akshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan , no.   30352/11, §   56, 2 February 2023, and the case-law references therein)?