CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34250/19 Svitlana Volodymyrivna SEILER against Ukraine lodged on 21 June 2019 communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and her parents over a flat which had been in 2008 transferred to the applicant on the basis of a decision of the arbitration tribunal. In 2017 Ms D., the applicant’s mother, challenged that decision before a civil court arguing that she had only found out about it in 2017 and that being a co-owner of the flat, she had not provided her agreement for its alienation and that the arbitration tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The applicant argued that Ms D. had been aware of the arbitration tribunal’s decision (and the fact that the flat belonged to the applicant) well before 2017. She had, therefore, missed the 90-days deadline for challenging the arbitration tribunal decisions as set out by law. The applicant asked the local court to request certain evidence that would confirm that Ms D. was aware that the flat belonged to her daughter, such as tax declarations and applications for utilities subsidy for 2008-2017. The court rejected that request stating that the applicant had failed to show that she could not obtain the documents herself. The applicant’s representative, apparently acting as if he represented Ms D., eventually obtained some documents and submitted them to the court. For example, from a copy of Ms D.’s 2015 application for utilities subsidy it appears that she had named the applicant as the owner of the flat. The local court rejected Ms D.’s action having found that the arbitration tribunal had acted according to its powers. At the same time, it refused to examine evidence submitted by the applicant as they were obtained in breach of confidentiality rights of Ms D. The applicant appealed; she asked the court to request evidence again, but her motion was refused as the court of appeal could only accept/request new evidence if the party had been unable to submit it to the local court for a good reason. On 18 May 2018 the appellate court reversed the local court’s judgment. On 13 February 2019 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. The courts found that the arbitration tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Ms D., although being a co-owner of the flat, had not been aware of the proceedings before it and had not agreed to the alienation of the flat. The Supreme Court also found that the applicant had failed to prove that Ms D. had missed the term for appeal against the arbitration tribunal’s decision. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing, 10 years after its adoption, of the final judgment establishing her property rights, and the courts’ approach to evidence that the applicant wished to submit to prove   Ms   D.’s knowledge of the arbitration tribunal’s decision, which did not comply with the requirements of fair trial. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, particularly in what concerns the domestic courts’ approach to evidence requested by the applicant, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Has the State discharged its positive obligation to afford the necessary procedural guarantees for the applicant to assert her property rights ( mutatis mutandis , Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine , no. 48553/99, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2002‑VII)?