Here’s a breakdown of the Markettrans, Pp v. Ukraine decision:
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. The case concerned a company, Markettrans, which had purchased a tourist base from a trade union organization. Ukrainian courts later invalidated the sale, returning the property to the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPFU). The ECtHR ruled that this deprivation of property was disproportionate, considering that Markettrans had bought the property in good faith, the State had taken a long time to reclaim the property, and the State did not demonstrate a compelling public interest need for the specific property.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the historical context of trade union property in Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
* It details the facts of the case, focusing on the purchase of the tourist base by Markettrans, the subsequent legal challenge by the prosecutor, and the decisions of the Ukrainian courts.
* The Court then assesses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
* The core of the judgment addresses the merits of the case, analyzing whether there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court examines the lawfulness of the interference, the public interest justification, and the proportionality of the measures taken.
* The judgment refers to similar previous cases, such as Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine and Federation of Trade Unions of the Chernihiv Region, underlining the systematic nature of the problem.
* Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding Markettrans EUR 50,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Disproportionate Burden:** The key takeaway is the Court’s emphasis on the disproportionate burden placed on Markettrans. Even if the State had a legitimate claim to the property, the circumstances of the case – the good faith purchase, the State’s delay, and the lack of a specific public interest justification – made the deprivation of property a violation of the Convention.
* **State’s Duty of Diligence:** The Court highlights that the State should have been aware of the property transfers through its own registration systems and should have acted more promptly to protect its interests.
* **Relevance of “Good Faith”:** The judgment underscores the importance of whether the applicant acted in good faith when acquiring the property.
* **Lack of Specific Public Interest:** The Court criticizes the Government for failing to demonstrate a concrete public interest served by reclaiming the specific property. A general reference to restoring State property rights was insufficient.
* **Compensation:** The Court’s decision to award a lump sum for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage reflects the difficulty in precisely calculating the losses in such cases.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it highlights a systemic issue regarding the restitution of trade union property and the need for clear legal frameworks and due diligence by the State in protecting its property interests without unduly infringing on the rights of private parties.
