Communicated on 3 March 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40614/10 Sergey Bernardovich RYL against Ukraine lodged on 14 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Bernardovich Ryl , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Sevastopol .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2004 the applicant concluded with private persons four separate barter agreements under which he received four plots of land in exchange of building materials.

In December 2007 the applicant instituted proceedings against the above private persons before the the Bakhchisaray Court and seeking to endorse his property title to those plots of land and to declare the barter agreements valid. The Bakhchisaray State Administration joined the proceedings as a third party without, however, lodging any separate claims. On 26 December 2007, in the presence of the representatives of all the parties, the court allowed the applicant ’ s claims. The judgment was not challenged in appeal and became final and binding on 6 January 2008.

On an unspecified date in 2009 a prosecutor, acting on behalf of the State Committee for Land Resources, appealed against the above judgment claiming that the Bakhchisaray Court had misinterpreted the law. On an unspecified date the Crimea Court of Appeal prolonged, without providing any reasons, the time-limit in order to allow the prosecutor to lodge that appeal. This decision was not subject to appeal.

On 28 October 2009 the Crimea Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 December 2007 and found against the applicant. It noted that the barter contracts were void and that the applicant did not have a property title to the plots of land. It was also noted that although the State Committee had not participated in the proceedings before the first instance court, their interests were affected by its decision.

The applicant appealed in cassation, but the Supreme Court rejected his appeal on 15 January 2010, having found no irregularities in the court of appeal ’ s decision

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that by accepting the prosecutor ’ s appeal and quashing the judgment of 26 December 2007 the court of appeal violated the principle of legal certainty. According to him, the Supreme Court ’ s decision was not sufficiently reasoned. He also complains that the principle of equality of arms was violated as the prosecutor joined the civil proceedings on the side of the State.

2. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complains that the quashing of the judgment violated his property rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a breach of the applicant ’ s right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the renewal of the time-limit for lodging an appeal, at least about one year after the judgment of 26 December 2007 became final and binding, and of the consequent quashing of this judgment in the applicant ’ s favour by the Crimea Court of Appeal ? Was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the participation of a State prosecutor in the appeal procedure?

2. Did the judgment of 26 December 2007 in the applicant ’ s favour confer a “possession” on him within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, does its quashing constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Was the interference a necessary measure to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, and proportionate in its impact on the applicant ’ s right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?