Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Goropashyn v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Goropashyn, who had his land title invalidated nearly 20 years after it was initially granted to him as a liquidator of the Chernobyl disaster. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property). The core issue was that the invalidation stemmed from irregularities in land distribution between the city and a neighboring village, a process the applicant had no control over. The Court emphasized that when correcting errors made by state authorities interferes with the property rights of a bona fide holder, the state has an obligation to provide compensation or other appropriate reparation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the facts, including the allocation of land to the applicant, the subsequent allocation to another individual (O.), and the legal proceedings initiated by the applicant.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision.
* **Scope of the Case:** The Court determined that the complaints should be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section addresses the admissibility of the application and the arguments presented by both the applicant and the government. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It highlighted that the case involved significant elements of public law, implicating the State’s regulatory capacity. The Court stressed that the authorities’ mistakes should not be remedied at the expense of the individual.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with just satisfaction (compensation). The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,880 for pecuniary damage (the value of the land) and EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **State Responsibility for Errors:** The decision reinforces the principle that states are responsible for correcting errors made by their authorities, especially when those errors affect individuals’ property rights.
* **Obligation to Compensate:** When such errors lead to the deprivation of property, the state has an obligation to provide adequate compensation or other appropriate reparation to the affected individual.
* **Bona Fide Holder Protection:** The decision emphasizes the protection of bona fide holders of property, meaning those who acquired their property in good faith and without knowledge of any irregularities.
* **Guaranteed Preferential Right:** The decision emphasizes that since the invalidation of the applicant’s title there have been no attempts to offer him any other form of reparation, for example, by allocating him a comparable plot of land. This is especially striking considering the fact that according to the domestic legislation the applicant has a guaranteed preferential right to obtain a plot of land.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly in cases involving land disputes and the correction of historical errors in land allocation. It underscores the need for Ukraine to have clear and effective mechanisms for compensating individuals who have been deprived of their property due to state errors.
