CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 7 October 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6855/15 Artur Sarkisovych ANTONYAN against Ukraine lodged on 20 January 2015 communicated on 18 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the police’s decision to annul the applicant’s car registration. In 2009 the applicant bought a car, already registered in Ukraine, on a commodity exchange and became the sixth owner of that car. He re-registered the car in his name with the police in accordance with the relevant procedure and used the car, including for his travels abroad, until 2012, when the registration of the car was cancelled by the police on the grounds that the initial registration had been carried out in breach of domestic law, as there was no information in the customs database that the car had undergone customs clearance when it had been imported into Ukraine in 2003. The criminal case against the police officers accused of unlawfully registering vehicles, including that of the applicant, was discontinued as time-barred in 2012. The applicant challenged the annulment before the administrative courts, arguing, inter alia , that such a decision violated his property rights. The first and second instance courts held that the cancellation was unlawful and ordered the police to renew the registration of the applicant’s car. By a final decision of 22 October 2014, the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine (the HACU) overturned the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant complains that the annulment of the registration of his car was unlawful and disproportionate, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He additionally complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the HACU misinterpreted domestic law and made an unfounded decision 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 annulment of the registration of the car, of which the applicant had been a bona fide acquirer and which had already been registered for years in Ukraine, 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)?