Published on 28 July 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 1131/17
ENERGOTEKHPROM, TOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 15 December 2016
communicated on 8 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the retention by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (“the NABU”) of items seized during a search at the applicant company’s premises.
Following the search on 8 July 2016, carried out in a context of a criminal investigation into large-scale misappropriation of State funds, the NABU seized from the applicant company numerous items, including computer equipment and documents. Having declared some of the seized items to be material evidence, the NABU applied for judicial authorisation to attach them. By a ruling of the investigating judge of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the district court”) of 13 September 2016, upheld on appeal on 11 October 2016, the NABU’s request was granted.
In parallel, the applicant company applied to the same court for an order requiring the return of the seized items. Referring to Article 173 § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which obliges an investigating judge to rule on attachment requests within 72 hours, failing which the seized items must be returned, the applicant company argued that the NABU attachment request reached the judge on 13 July 2016. As the judge failed to rule on the NABU’s request within the prescribed time-limit, the applicant company maintained that the continued retention of the items after 17 July 2016 had been unlawful.
By a ruling of 2 September 2016, the investigating judge of the district court rejected the applicant company’s request. In doing so, the judge apparently did not address the applicant company’s argument concerning the expiry of the 72-hour time-limit, merely noting that the request was premature as the parallel attachment proceedings were still pending.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains that in the proceedings on its request for the return of the seized items the investigating judge failed to address its key and pertinent arguments and that the retention of those items was unlawful.
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 to the Convention?
2. Was the retention of the seized from the applicant company items provided for by law and proportionate (see, for example, Pendov v. Bulgaria, no. 44229/11, § 42, 26 March 2020)?
3. Did the applicant company have a reasonable opportunity of effectively challenging the continued retention of the seized items, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018, and the references therein; Zosymov v. Ukraine, no. 4322/06, §§ 74-79, 7 July 2016; Shorazova v. Malta, no. 51853/19, §§ 103-105, 3 March 2022)?