CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mai 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 2 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11834/17 Roman Petrovych MARCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 1 February 2017 communicated on 12 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the allegedly arbitrary retention of the applicant’s property by the tax police and the eventual loss of some of that property. The application falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   13 of the Convention, even though the applicant additionally relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant was a private entrepreneur at the material time. In September and November 2012 the tax police conducted several searches at his home, offices and car in the course of a criminal investigation into suspected tax evasion. A large number of items were seized, including computers, printers and other office equipment, various documents and so on. The applicant tried to retrieve his property many times, but the investigator allegedly disregarded his requests. On 1 August 2014 the Solomyanskyy Court, by a final ruling, allowed the applicant’s complaint against the investigator and ordered the latter to return the applicant’s property to him as it had been seized ultra   vires (with neither any prior judicial authorisation nor a post-factum impoundment order within the legally established time-limit). No action, however, was allegedly taken to enforce that ruling. On 21 June 2016 the investigation was discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence, and the applicant once again reclaimed his property. On 6 September 2016 some of the items were returned to him. On 15   September 2016 the tax police informed the applicant that it was impossible to return the rest of the property to him as it had been lost. The applicant tried, unsuccessfully, to bring criminal proceedings against the tax police. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, did that interference meet the requirement of lawfulness, pursue a legitimate public or general interest and strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?