Published on 19 April 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27128/11
SKVYRASILRYBGOSP, VAT
against Ukraine
lodged on 18 April 2011
communicated on 30 March 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the allegedly unjustified extension, in November 2010, of the time-limit for an appeal by a prosecutor against the judgment of the Kyiv Regional Commercial Court of 24 March 2010 endorsing the applicant company’s claim for a title to land which had been previously allocated to its legal predecessor. The appeal was based on the argument that the title at issue had not been transferred to the applicant company once its legal predecessor had ceased to exist. The proceedings on appeal had resulted in the quashing of that judgment, which by that time had already been enforced, and ultimately in the rejection of the applicant company’s claim by the final decision of the Higher Commercial Court on 23 February 2011. The applicant company complains that the domestic courts violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by having allowed the prosecutor’s belated appeal and by having quashed the judgment of 24 March 2010 favourable to it.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the reopening of the proceedings in the case and the quashing of the judgment of the Kyiv Regional Commercial Court of 24 March 2010 (see Ponomaryov v. Ukraine, no. 3236/03, §§ 41-42, 3 April 2008, and Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, §§ 50-54, 29 October 2015)?
2. Was there an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant company’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the reopening of the proceedings in its case and the quashing of the judgment of the Kyiv Regional Commercial Court of 24 March 2010? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ponomaryov, cited above, §§ 46-47)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy