Communicated on 13 December 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 55765/12 TREYD 2008, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 17 August 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the seizure of the applicant company ’ s bank account in the context of ongoing criminal proceedings against officials of a different company. The impugned measure was ordered by the Donetsk Budyonivskyy District Court on 29 March 2012 at a hearing, of which the applicant company had not been notified. Nor was the seizure order amenable to appeal. The court relied on Articles 125 and 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1960 (“the CCP”; repealed with effect from 20 November 2012). Article 125 of the CCP provided, in particular, that the investigator was obliged to take necessary measures with a view to securing a possible penalty of confiscation imposed as a result of criminal proceedings. Article 126 regulated the procedure for securing possible confiscation. It provided that this was to be achieved by the seizure of assets, valuables and other property of an accused or a suspect, or other persons who could be held materially liable for his or her actions. Under the CCP in force at the material time, third parties whose interests were affected by seizure and/or confiscation in criminal proceedings had no standing and no procedural rights within those proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the seizure of the applicant company ’ s bank account by the ruling of the Donetsk Budyonivskyy District Court of 29 March 2012 constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant company ’ s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that measure lawful (see, mutatis mutandis , Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 45875/06, §§ 119-28, 6 December 2011)? Did it strike the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant company ’ s right of property?

2. Did the applicant company have access to a court to challenge that seizure, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective remedy in respect of its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?