CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 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 } Published on 3 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57790/17 RAST, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 21 July 2017 communicated on 10 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that the decisions in domestic court proceedings had nullified and deprived of any legal effect the judicial decisions in another set of proceedings between the same parties and regarding the same matter. On 10 December 2015 the applicant company won an electronic auction to buy certain immovable property sold for debt. Due to an alleged technical problem (Internet connection cut) at the end of that first auction the organiser company C. decided to discontinue it and to organise a second auction on 15   December 2015. A different company, F., was announced the winner of the second auction. First set of proceedings: the courts allowed applicant company’s claim and declared the second auction invalid. They found that the first auction had been completed after the applicant company had made its bid on 10   December 2015, which had been the highest at that moment. The courts noted the organiser’s argument that it had experienced an Internet cut at the relevant time, which had prevented other auction participants from making additional bids, but found that the organiser had failed to prove that it had duly communicated to the auction participants its decision to discontinue the first auction (it had only announced it on its website and not by direct personal notification to the applicant company). Therefore, the first auction had been lawfully completed and there were no legal grounds to suspend it and organise the second auction. Final decision: Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal, 17 May 2016. Second set of proceedings: the owner of the property sold (company K.) lodged a claim seeking invalidation of the results of the first auction. The courts allowed the claim. They found that the organiser’s Internet access had been cut after the applicant had made its bid and this had made it impossible for the other auction participants to submit higher bids. Therefore, the organiser had duly discontinued the first auction and, therefore, its results had to be declared invalid. The courts considered that the decision in the first set of proceedings was not binding on them as those proceedings had a different subject matter as they concerned the validity of the second auction, not the validity of the first one. Final decision: Higher Commercial Court, 22   February 2017. The applicant company, the auction organiser, the property owner and the winner of the second auction participated in both sets of proceedings. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty breached having regard to the applicant company’s complaint that the second set of proceedings entailed a reconsideration of the matters previously finally determined in the first set of proceedings culminating in the final decision of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal of 17 May 2016?