Here’s a breakdown of the Bondar v. Ukraine decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerned two applicants who were deprived of their land plots after a prosecutor challenged the legality of the initial land allocation. The Ukrainian courts sided with the prosecutor, arguing the land was forestry land and should not have been transferred to private ownership. The ECtHR ruled that the applicants did not receive adequate compensation or reparation for the loss of their property, leading to a disproportionate interference with their property rights.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Clearly states the case is about the deprivation of land plots and the applicants’ reliance on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Background:** Outlines the sequence of events, including the initial allocation of land, the prosecutor’s challenge, and the decisions of the Ukrainian courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Locus Standi:** Addressed the issue of the first applicant continuing the proceedings after the second applicant’s death, affirming his right to do so.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section forms the core of the judgment, assessing the lawfulness, public interest, and proportionality of the property deprivation.
* **Admissibility:** The Court dismissed the government’s preliminary objection regarding the availability of domestic remedies, referencing a similar previous case.
* **Merits:** The Court focused on whether the applicants had the opportunity to obtain compensation or reparation for the loss of their property. It reiterated that taking property without adequate compensation is generally a disproportionate interference.
* **Application of Article 41:** Deals with just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
* The Court ordered the respondent State to ensure full restitution of the applicants’ title to the plots of land in issue, or the provision of monetary compensation or of comparable property to the applicants.
* The Court awarded EUR 1,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* The Court awarded EUR 110 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Proportionality of Interference:** The decision emphasizes the importance of compensation when property is taken. A lack of compensation is only justifiable in exceptional circumstances.
* **Availability of Remedies:** The Court’s rejection of the government’s argument regarding domestic remedies highlights the need for clear and effective mechanisms for compensation in cases of property deprivation.
* **Restitution or Compensation:** The Court’s order for restitution of the land or, alternatively, monetary compensation or comparable property, underscores the State’s obligation to provide adequate redress for the violation of property rights.
* **Succession:** The Court allowed the husband of the deceased applicant to continue with the case.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
