Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

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

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

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

Cited paragraphs only

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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707