Published on 22 November 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 929/13 KOMERTSIYNA KOMPANIYA, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 21 December 2012 communicated on 3 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

By the final decision of 26 June 2012, the Higher Commercial Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions invalidating the contract, which the applicant entered with the State Property Fund in 2004, as well as the related decrees issued by the latter the same year, establishing a joint venture to which the Fund had transferred the title to a hotel and adjacent constructions, while the applicant had transferred a sum of money. The courts held that the Fund had exceeded its powers and that the joint venture had to be liquidated. Consequently, the applicant company lost its shares in the joint venture and the relevant part of the property which had belonged to it and for which it received no compensation. The applicant company complains about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that regard and also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions in this case entailed a reconsideration of the matters previously determined by the final decision of the Supreme Court of 6 October 2009 in another set of commercial proceedings , inter alia , acknowledging that the joint venture had been the lawful owner of the property at issue, and that the courts disregarded its related submissions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the applicant company’s complaint that the proceedings at issue entailed a reconsideration of the matters previously determined by the final decision of the Supreme Court of 6 October 2009 in another set of proceedings (see, for instance, Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 73990/01 and 3 others, §§ 60-65, 15 July 2010, and Decheva and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 43071/06, §§ 41-45, 26 June 2012)?

(b) Did the courts give adequate reasons for their decisions, in so far as this concerned the applicant company’s arguments relating to the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty (see, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine , no. 7577/02, § 83-84, 3 May 2007)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of that provision?

Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see, for instance, Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine , no. 22603/02, §§ 55 ‑ 61, 22 November 2007, and Decheva and Others , cited above, §§ 53-58)?