CHUB v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications
Doc ref: 14401/14;14793/14;57149/14;64284/14;64351/14 • ECHR ID: 001-213757
Document date: November 3, 2021
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
Published on 22 November 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 14401/14 Sergiy Valentynovych CHUB against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 November 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the annulment of their property titles or lease rights to plots of land or a flat, which they received from the local authorities or bought or inherited from private individuals who in turn had received them from the local authorities, following a “protest” or claims against them lodged by local prosecutors or authorities. The domestic courts ruled against the applicants finding, inter alia , that: in deciding to transfer a plot of land to the applicant the local authorities had exceeded their powers (application no. 14401/14); the applicant as a foreign national had failed to alienate an agricultural plot of land, which he had inherited from his mother, within one year after the inheritance, as required by domestic law (no. 14793/14); the local authorities’ decision to transfer a flat to the applicant had breached another individual’s rights to use that flat and the applicant had allegedly used her right to a privatisation of property and had not allegedly been on a list of persons requiring housing (no. 57149/14); the local authorities had leased a plot of land to the applicant company in breach of domestic law (no. 64284/14); and that the local authorities had exceeded their powers in transferring two plots of land to a private individual, one of which was later sold to the applicant (no. 64351/14). No compensation was offered to the applicants.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was it in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicants?
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality
Represented by
Final domestic decision
14401/14
Chub v. Ukraine
07/02/2014
Sergiy Valentynovych CHUB 1958 Cherkasy Ukrainian
-
21 November 2013,
Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court
14793/14
Lobko v. Ukraine
10/03/2014
Viktor Alekseyevich
LOBKO
1957Monchegorsk
Russian
-
2 December 2013,
Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court
57149/14
Lupashku v. Ukraine
11/08/2014
Irina Leonidovna LUPASHKU 1956 Berezivka Ukrainian
-
19 February 2014, Higher Administrative Court
64284/14
Vest Ist Grup, TOV v. Ukraine
11/09/2014
VEST IST GRUP, TOV 2000 Kyiv Ukrainian
Volodymyr Anatoliyovych LYSENKO
1 April 2014, Higher Commercial Court
64351/14
Vitse v. Ukraine
16/09/2014
Filipp Andre Sadi VITSE 1955 Costa de Caparica French
Volodymyr Yuriyovych POLATAY
19 March 2014, Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court