CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 29 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18611/18 Svitlana Mykolayivna BORYSENKO against Ukraine lodged on 29 March 2018 communicated on 10 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 26   July 2016 the police conducted a search at the domicile of the applicant’s son, who was suspected of armed robbery of a bank cash courier. As a result, certain items and the following amounts of money were seized: 46,240 US Dollars, 31,100 Russian roubles and 3,500   Ukrainian hryvnias (at the material time the total was equivalent to about 42,680 euros). Following the applicant’s complaint, on 23 December 2016 the investigating judge lifted the seizure of those funds and ordered that they be returned to the   applicant. It was noted that she had provided documentary evidence proving that the money belonged to her and that she had got it in her possession lawfully. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her money has never been returned to her. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her 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?