CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2025

.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 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 71587/17 Viktor Vasylyovych DUBKOVETSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 22 September 2017 communicated on 15 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of commercial proceedings due to the intervention of the public prosecutor’s office. On 2   August   2016 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court allowed the applicant’s claim against a municipality, recognising his title to half of a municipally owned building based on significant renovation works he had undertaken during his tenancy of this property. As the municipality did not appeal, this ruling became final. On 5 September 2016 the regional deputy prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) acting on behalf of the municipality lodged an ordinary appeal against the above ruling, arguing that the State’s interests were at stake. Claiming that he had learned of the ruling through the public sources, he requested an extension of the time-limit for appeal. On 22   September   2016 the Lviv Commercial Court of Appeal granted the extension and on 5 December 2016 it allowed the prosecutor’s appeal quashing the ruling of the first-instance court and dismissing the applicant’s claim. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the High Commercial Court, contesting the appeal court’s findings on the merits. The photocopy of the applicant’s appeal also bears a handwritten note on the front page, apparently added by the applicant after the photocopy was made, wherein he also complains about the extension of the time-limit for the prosecutor’s appeal. On 29 March 2017 the High Commercial Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law upholding the findings of the court of appeal on the merits. His subsequent request for a review of the above rulings based on the alleged case-law divergence was rejected by the Supreme Court on 11 July 2017 as unsubstantiated. In separate proceedings, on 4 May 2022 the applicant was awarded over 280,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (an equivalent of around 9,000 euros) from the municipality in compensation for the costs of undertaken renovation works of the impugned property. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   about the public prosecutor’s intervention in support of the municipality and claims that the extension of the time-limit for the prosecutor’s ordinary appeal was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. He also complains that the quashing of the final judgment in his favour was contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article   6   §   1 and Article   1   of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Neyman v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 68470/12, 12 January 2021)? In particular, did the applicant properly raise these issues in his appeal on points of law before the High Commercial Court?   2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   –     Did the prosecutor’s intervention in the applicant’s case undermine the appearance of a fair trial and the principle of equality of arms (see   Menchinskaya v. Russia , no. 42454/02, §§ 35-40, 15 January 2009, and Batsanina v. Russia , no. 3932/02, § 27, 26 May 2009)?   –     Was the principle of legal certainty breached by the decision to renew the time-limit for lodging the prosecutor’s appeal and to quash a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour (see   Ponomaryov v.   Ukraine , no.   3236/03, §§ 40-42, 3 April 2008, and Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 77-80, ECHR 1999-VII)?   3.     Was there an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the quashing of the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court of 2 August 2016? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (see Ukraine-Tyumen v.   Ukraine , no.   22603/02, §§   47-61, 22   November 2007, and Ponomaryov , cited above, §§ 46-47)?