Published on 3 July 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 59414/15 ODESKA BUTERBRODNA KOMPANIYA, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 18 November 2015 communicated on 15 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant company’s deprivation of real estate property following invalidation, upon the prosecutor’s claims submitted in the interests of the State, of a series of purchase contracts between private parties.

The applicant company is a legal entity founded by Mr and Ms Ye. and one more person. The disputed property is a summer café located in the territory of a park zone in Odesa.

In 2012 the applicant company obtained ownership rights to the disputed property as a contribution to its statutory capital by Mr and Ms Ye. The latter had previously purchased the property from M., whose title had been established by a court judgment of 12 July 2011 acknowledging a purchase contract between M. and B. as valid.

In April 2012 and May 2014 respectively a prosecutor, acting on behalf of the Odesa City Council, initiated two sets of proceedings challenging first the court judgment of 12 July 2011, and then the contracts between M. and Mr and Ms Ye. as well as their and the applicant company’s titles. It was established during the domestic proceedings that the disputed property was an unauthorised construction and that neither B. nor M. could own it and dispose of it. Based on this, all transactions and titles regarding this property were invalidated, including the applicant company’s one, being the last owner. The final decision in its case was delivered by the High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases on 20 April 2015.

The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the deprivation of property to which it was subject was unlawful and disproportionate. It also complains under Article 6 about the lack of reasoning in the courts’ decisions adopted in the proceedings on the invalidation of its title.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. If so, was the interference with the applicant company’s rights 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 that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?