Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Lupashku v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This case concerns a Ukrainian woman, Ms. Lupashku, who was deprived of her privatized flat following a prosecutor’s protest and a decision by the local Executive Committee. The core issue is whether Ukraine violated her right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the domestic courts in Ukraine failed to conduct a thorough examination of her case, particularly regarding the validity of the competing property claim and the process by which her property rights were annulled. As a result, the Court ruled that Ukraine violated Ms. Lupashku’s property rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, detailing how Ms. Lupashku privatized the flat, the subsequent complaint by another individual (P.) leading to the annulment of her ownership, and the ensuing legal proceedings in Ukraine.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* *Admissibility:* The Court addressed the Ukrainian government’s argument that Ms. Lupashku’s application should be inadmissible because she obtained the flat through illegal means. The Court affirmed that even a revocable property right can be considered a “possession” protected by the Convention. It also dismissed the government’s argument that Ms. Lupashku failed to exhaust domestic remedies, referencing similar arguments made in previous cases.
* *Merits:* The Court examined whether the Ukrainian courts’ handling of the case was in accordance with domestic law and free from arbitrariness. It highlighted several concerns, including the domestic courts’ failure to adequately address the validity of the competing claim to the flat, the role of the prosecutor in the proceedings, and the lack of analysis regarding Ms. Lupashku’s prior privatization of another flat.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with the applicant’s claim for damages. While the Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage due to lack of supporting documents, it awarded Ms. Lupashku 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Protection of Property Rights:** The decision reinforces the protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, even in cases where the initial acquisition of property is later contested.
* **Fairness and Due Process:** The Court emphasizes the importance of domestic courts conducting thorough and comprehensive examinations of cases involving property disputes, ensuring that decisions are well-reasoned and based on a careful analysis of the relevant facts and legal arguments.
* **Role of the Prosecutor:** The decision highlights the need for caution when a prosecutor intervenes in what are essentially private disputes, particularly when such intervention leads to the annulment of property rights.
* **Exhaustion of domestic remedies:** The decision confirms the position of the Court regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Ukraine in cases regarding the possibility of obtaining compensation.
**** This decision may have implications for similar property disputes in Ukraine, particularly those involving privatization and challenges to ownership rights. It underscores the need for Ukrainian courts to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process in such cases.
