1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of immovable property from a bona fide purchaser, as the results of the auction, on the basis of which the property was sold, have been declared invalid.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decisions of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser who acquired the property under a reciprocal contract and possessed it for a long time. The court emphasized that depriving a bona fide purchaser of ownership due to violations committed by third parties during the sale of property at auction contradicts Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it places an individual and excessive burden on him. The court took into account that interference with the right to property must be proportionate, and in this case, a fair balance between the interests of society and the interests of the purchaser was not maintained. The court also took into account that the property was acquired at an auction, which is intended to prevent fraud, and the defendant should not be held responsible for violations committed by other persons within this procedure. The Court departed from its previous position, according to which the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser was possible if the property was disposed of from the owner’s possession not by his will.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and refused to satisfy the claim for the recovery of property.
