CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 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 7 April 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33490/16 Igor Yuriyovych FILIPENKO against Ukraine lodged on 31 May 2016 communicated on 18 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of court proceedings which were directly decisive for the applicant’s property rights. The applicant complains, in particular, that decisions adopted by Ukrainian courts were characterised by a lack of sufficient reasoning and based on inadmissible evidence. He relies on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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: (i)     Was the principle of equality of arms, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected during the court proceedings in the applicant’s case? (ii)     Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and were their decisions “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61-64, ECHR 2015; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §   185, 6   November 2018, with further references)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of that Article (see, for example, Project‑Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no. 1920/14, §   82, 19   November 2020)?