Published on 3 July 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 51653/15 Vitaliy Vitaliyovych DOMINNIK against Ukraine lodged on 10 October 2015 communicated on 15 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of a land plot 18 years after he had obtained it.

The applicant has a longstanding dispute with his neighbour S. regarding the delimitation of their adjacent land plots. Numerous proceedings had been initiated by either the applicant or S.

In December 2013 S. applied to the local court to have the decision of the local council of 1997 granting the applicant his land plot, and his title documents to it, invalidated. During the proceedings the applicant claimed that S. had been aware of the impugned decision well before 2010 as he had been a party to other proceedings related to this land plot and must have known of that decision, having accordingly missed the 3-year limitation period. On 29 April 2014 the local court granted S.’s claims, having found that back in 1997 the applicant had not submitted all documents required for the land allocation. The court also rejected the applicant’s argument regarding the limitation period noting that the involvement of S. into the proceedings referred to by the applicant did not mean that he was aware of the impugned decision.

On 19 February 2015 the appellate court upheld the above judgment in part relating to the quashing of the local council’s decision, but quashed the part relating to the invalidation of the applicant’s title documents as the State Registration Service had not been involved into the proceedings. The court did not address the applicant’s argument as to the limitation period.

On 30 April 2015 the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases upheld the judgment of the appellate court.

In further proceedings initiated by S. the courts invalidated the applicant’s title documents on the basis of the above judgments.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts failed to apply the limitation period and ruled to his detriment, and that he was deprived of his property in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the domestic courts’ approach to the application of the limitation period in the applicant’s case (see, mutatis mutandis , Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova , no. 39815/07, § 51, 16 July 2009)?

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

3. If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?