CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 17 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 73173/17 FLY SERVICE, PP against Ukraine lodged on 27 September 2017 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The events giving rise to the present application began with the seizure, on 12 January 2000, of an aircraft belonging to the applicant company, within the tax arrears’ redemption proceedings instituted by tax authorities against its shareholder Mr R. Shortly thereafter, the aircraft was transferred for storage to a third company, with its value being estimated at 708,253   Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH; equivalent to about 128,700 euros (EUR) at the material time). As initially the courts found in favour of the tax authorities, on 13 July 2000 the bailiffs’ service sold the aircraft for UAH   380,502 (about EUR 74,200), after having reduced its value several times. The relevant administrative proceedings between the tax authorities and Mr R. continued for many years, with the applicant company being involved therein as a third party. Eventually the courts (the Odesa Circuit Administrative Court on 9 September 2011, the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal on 14   March 2013 and the Higher Administrative Court on 22 May 2017) found against the tax authorities and allowed the applicant company’s claim in part. They quashed as unlawful the aircraft’s seizure of 12   January 2000, its transfer for storage to a third company, the reduction of its value on several occasions prior to its forced sale, as well as the sale of the aircraft by the bailiffs’ service on 13 July 2000. The courts awarded the applicant company UAH   380,502 as compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, to be paid from the State budget. Although that decision became enforceable once upheld on appeal, on 11 April 2013 the Higher Administrative Court stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the final resolution of the dispute. The amount in question was paid to the applicant company in October 2018. It then corresponded to about EUR   11,700. The applicant company subsequently claimed compensation for inflation ‑ related losses and interests as a result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in its favour. On 29 July 2019 the Odesa Circuit Administrative Court awarded the applicant company UAH 62,783 (equal to about EUR 2,200) as interests for the lengthy non-enforcement and rejected its claim in the part pertaining to inflation-related losses. By the final ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 9 November 2023, the applicant company’s claim for compensation for inflation-related losses was, however, granted in part. It was awarded UAH 11,060 (about EUR   285) under that head. The applicant company complains of a violation of its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. It also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly excessive length of the related proceedings, including the length of the non-enforcement of the judgment in its favour. Lastly, the applicant company complains under Article   13 that it did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case, including at the enforcement stage, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?