Published on 13 September 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 42955/18 Ivans LAVRECKIS against Latvia lodged on 4 September 2018 communicated on 26 August 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In 2006 the applicant bought an apartment in a State-held auction-sale that was organised to cover the previous owner’s debts. However, by a final decision of 26 July 2012 the domestic courts granted the property rights to another person who had bought the apartment before the auction but had failed to register her property rights.

Meanwhile, the bailiff had used the purchase price the applicant had paid for the apartment to cover the debtor’s debts and bailiff’s fees. The applicant brought civil proceedings against the bailiff arguing that she had not acted diligently by disbursing those funds while other proceedings had been pending. By a final decision of 6 June 2018 the domestic courts dismissed that claim.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State has not ensured an effective protection of his property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Was bringing of the claim against the bailiff an effective remedy in the particular circumstances of the case with regard to the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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, in particular:

2.1. owing to the applicant’s inability to obtain the ownership of the apartment he had purchased in the auction organised by the State?

2.2. owing to the applicant’s inability to obtain reimbursement of the purchase price he had paid?

3. If so, was that interference lawful, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public or general interest and was it proportionate to the aim pursued? Did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; VukuÅ¡ić v. Croatia , no. 69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016)?

4. Has the State complied with its positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide judicial mechanisms for the protection of the applicant’s property rights (see Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, § 100, 7 July 2009) and to take necessary measures to protect the applicant’s property (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 109, 3 April 2012)?