Published on 3 July 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 15830/16
Roza Borisovna TVERDOKHLEBOVA
against Ukraine
lodged on 12 March 2016
communicated on 15 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s deprivation of her title to a land plot upon the courts’ decisions granting the prosecutor’s claims to have that land returned.
In November 2013 the applicant bought from D. a land plot which was a part of a bigger plot of land that had been granted to D. by the Brovary District State Administration.
In June 2014 a local prosecutor applied to the court seeking that the contract between D. and the applicant and the property titles be invalidated, claiming that the land at issue was located within Bohdanivka village and could not have been disposed of by the State administration. The prosecutor’s claims were refused by the local court but granted by a judgment of the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal of 14 May 2015, which was upheld in cassation on 16 September 2015.
The applicant alleges that she was not informed of the proceedings either by the local court or by the court of appeal, all the summonses being sent to a wrong address. Her complaints to that effect before the court of cassation were futile.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of fair hearing on account of the courts’ failure to inform her of the proceedings and about the unfair outcome of her case. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, she also complains that she had been deprived of her property for reasons for which she bears no responsibility.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the alleged courts’ failure to inform her of the proceedings?
2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did she 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. 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)?