Published on 3 July 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 7210/15
Illya Mykhaylovych GUMINSKYY
against Ukraine
lodged on 9 April 2015
communicated on 15 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of property upon a claim by the prosecutor to have that property returned to the State.
In January 2009 K. purchased some premises from the Viysktorgservis (an entity under the Ministry of Defence). As K. was unable to repay the loan he had taken from the applicant, in July 2009 the applicant acquired the property title over those premises.
In May 2013, a local prosecutor lodged a claim against K. seeking to invalidate the purchase agreement. The applicant was not involved into these proceedings. On 3 July 2013 the Rivne District Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim finding that Viysktorgservis overstepped its powers when selling the disputed premises. It also awarded K. the reimbursement of the amount he had paid under the purchase agreement. That judgment came into force on 29 August 2013 after appeal review.
Based on those judgments, the prosecutor submitted a claim against the applicant to have the premises at issue returned to the Ministry of Defence. Throughout the proceedings the applicant argued that the prosecutor had missed the 3-year statutory limitation period as he must have been aware of the alleged violation of the Ministry of Defence’s rights long before 2013. The local court, having analysed the issue of limitation period in detail, refused the prosecutor’s claim. The appellate court, however, reversed and granted it. On 8 December 2014 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases refused to open cassation proceedings into the applicant’s cassation appeal.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the higher courts disregarded his pertinent arguments regarding the limitation period and applied it unfairly to his detriment, and, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that he was deprived of his property without compensation.
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 the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards his complaint under Article 1 or Protocol No. 1? In particular, did he have a possibility to claim or otherwise obtain a compensation for the losses suffered?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
4. 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?