Communicated on 4 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 31338/14
Maryna Oleksiyivna MAMINASHVILI and YUPITER, PP
against Ukraine
lodged on 10 April 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application was lodged to the Court by a privately owned company and its sole owner. It concerns the demolition of a building owed by the applicant company since 1996. The building was constructed in 1970 on a plot of land belonging to the State. The applicant company leased the land plot from the State and used the building for its commercial activity. The lease contract was subject to prolongation every five years. According to the applicants, the local authorities failed to allow the latest prolongation requests lodged by the applicant company in 2012.
On 26 September and 7 November 2012 the local council decided to renovate certain areas of the town and ordered the demolition of a number of “unauthorised” constructions, including the building owned by the applicant company. The reason for the inclusion of the applicant’s property into the list was the alleged failure of the applicant company to provide documents attesting its right to use the land on which the building was located.
On 8 November 2012 the building was demolished.
The applicants challenged the above-mentioned decisions of the local council before the court and claimed compensation for damage. They submitted, inter alia, that the applicant company had a registered title to the building at issue and that the local authorities had failed to ensure the prolongation of the land lease. The claim was rejected by the courts, with the final judgment given by the Higher Administrative Court on 26 December 2013.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complain that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was breached on account of the local authorities’ refusal to prolong the land lease contract and the demolition of the building which belonged to the applicant company.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
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? Was the above interference proportionate in terms of that Article?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy