Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 47847/22
Oleg Volodymyrovych GASPARYAN
against Ukraine
lodged on 21 September 2022
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns two civil disputes between applicant and Mr K. over their agreement on cooperation in acquisition of land. The agreement provided that the parties would cooperate in acquisition of some land and K. would transfer half of it to the applicant once certain limitations on transfer of that land would be lifted.
In the first set of proceedings, K. sought to have the agreement declared invalid, arguing that it was in fact a preliminary land-transfer agreement which, under domestic law, required notarisation but had not been notarised. The courts dismissed the claim, finding that the agreement was not a land-transfer agreement and, therefore, did not require notarisation. Final decision: Supreme Court, 20 December 2021.
In the second set of proceedings, on 8 April 2021 the Kyivskyi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation under the agreement. It found that, in view of the findings in the first set of proceedings, the agreement did not require notarisation and was valid. However, the court held that the conditions for payment of the compensation were not yet met since the agreement provided that compensation was payable only after all land covered by the agreement was released from transfer limitations, a condition that had not been satisfied at the time the applicant lodged his claim for compensation.
In a final decision, on 25 May 2022 the Supreme Court, siting in a differently constituted panel, overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal in the second set of proceedings and held that the agreement was invalid, as it was in essence a land-transfer agreement which required notarisation, which had not been carried out. The Supreme Court panel further held that the findings of the courts in the first set of proceedings, including those of the Supreme Court, were not binding on it. It explained that, under the Code of Civil Procedure, only findings of fact in previous proceedings involving the same parties have res judicata effect, whereas the matter before it concerned not factual findings but rather their legal interpretation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
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, did the Supreme Court in the second set of proceedings give adequate reasons for its decision, and was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of that decision (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61‑64, ECHR 2015; Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 73990/01 and 3 others, §§ 60-65, 15 July 2010; Esertas v. Lithuania, no. 50208/06, §§ 20-32, 31 May 2012; Gražulevičiūtė v. Lithuania, no. 53176/17, §§ 72-83, 14 December 2021; Melgarejo Martinez de Abellanosa v. Spain, no. 11200/19, §§ 33-44, 14 December 2021; Latorre Atance v. Spain, no. 33818/22, §§ 55-59, 18 December 2025)?