The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Levchenko v. Ukraine, concerning the seizure of the applicant’s car during criminal proceedings against third parties. The applicant, Mr. Viktor Mykolayovych Levchenko, complained that the seizure was arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the seizure, which lasted for over four years, was disproportionate, especially considering the stagnation of the criminal investigation. As a result, the ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,348 for costs and expenses.
The decision starts by outlining the background of the case, including the purchase of the car, the criminal investigation, and the seizure of the vehicle. It then details the domestic proceedings, including court decisions regarding the seizure and its eventual lifting. The Court’s assessment begins with the admissibility of the application, addressing the Government’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The ECtHR rejected this argument, finding that the remedies cited by the Government were not applicable to the applicant’s situation. On the merits, the Court examined whether the seizure complied with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering whether it was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate. While acknowledging the legitimate aim of ensuring the proper functioning of justice, the Court found the length of the seizure and the stagnation of the investigation rendered the measure disproportionate. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
The most important provision of this decision is the finding that the prolonged seizure of the applicant’s car, especially in light of the stalled criminal investigation, constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This highlights the importance of the duration of such measures and the need for ongoing justification, particularly when investigations are not progressing. This decision reinforces the principle that even measures that initially serve a legitimate aim can become disproportionate if they are maintained for an excessive period without sufficient justification. **** This is especially relevant for Ukraine, where lengthy investigations and property seizures are not uncommon, and this judgment serves as a reminder of the need for procedural safeguards and proportionality in such cases.
