Published on 18 September 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9793/17 Lesya Stepanivna KARPYN against Ukraine lodged on 24 January 2017 communicated on 30 August 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In November 2013 the State Bailiffs’ Service organised a public auction with a view to a forced sale of a land plot and commercial real estate belonging to the applicant, which were subject to a mortgage. That measure was taken within enforcement proceedings initiated by a private crediting company seeking to recover from her a debt of 4,092,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). While the initial auction took place on 15 November 2013 with the winning bid amounting to UAH 8,000,000, the final results were approved on 8 July 2013, with the lot having been sold for UAH 1,110,000.

The case mainly concerns the applicant’s allegation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of various irregularities in the organisation and conduct of the above-mentioned auction. She complains, in particular, that it was carried out in spite of two injunction orders and in disregard of a friendly settlement agreement reached between her and the creditor. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. Lastly, she complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of unfairness of the related judicial proceedings, namely a breach of the principle of legal certainty, on account of two rulings of the Supreme Court containing conflicting findings and reasoning in respect of the same events and legal issues.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the principle of legal certainty been complied with, regard being had to the allegedly conflicting case-law of the Supreme Court, whose role is precisely to ensure consistency in court practice and uniformity of the courts’ case-law (see, for example, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 123, 29 November 2016)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, has the interference been in compliance with the requirements of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia , no. 39544/05, §§ 250-52, 12 December 2013)?

3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?