Published on 19 September 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 60757/14
Tatyana Olegovna UKRAINETS
against Ukraine
lodged on 13 September 2014
communicated on 21 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Following a conviction for bribery (a verdict of 15 October 2012 upheld on appeal on 25 January 2013), half of the property belonging to the applicant’s husband was confiscated. As part of the enforcement proceedings, on 26 February 2013 the bailiff ordered a search for and seizure of the car purchased by the couple in marriage and registered at the applicant’s husband’s name. On 22 March 2013 the Kryvyy Rig Zhovtnevyy District Court (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”), following the applicant’s claim brought in separate proceedings, recognised her title to ½ of the car. Relying on that ruling, which had not been appealed against and became final on 1 April 2013, the applicant challenged the bailiff’s order arguing that it constituted an unlawful impediment to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She also noted that she was openly using that car registered by her domicile address and that there were no grounds for ordering the search. The domestic courts (the Zhovtnevyy Court on 27 January 2014, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal on 13 March 2014 and the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters on 11 April 2014) rejected her claim on the grounds that she had failed to prove her title to ½ of the car as claimed by her.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1[1] that there has been a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. She also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ decisions in respect of her claim against the bailiff were manifestly arbitrary.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant suffer any significant disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
If so:
2. 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 particular, were the domestic courts’ decisions in her case arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2015)?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §§ 187-99, 13 July 2021)?
4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
[1] She additionally relies on Article 8 of the Convention.