Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Kulyk v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Kulyk, who was deprived of his land following a prosecutor’s action that challenged the legality of the land allocation. The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the domestic courts’ decisions were based on vaguely defined regulations regarding “protected shoreline belts,” leading to an arbitrary deprivation of property without compensation. The Court emphasized that the lack of clear boundaries and the negligible portion of the land falling within the protected zone, combined with the long-standing agricultural use of the land, made the deprivation disproportionate. The Court ordered Ukraine to restore Mr. Kulyk’s title to the land or provide adequate compensation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the factual background, including the allocation of land to Mr. Kulyk, the prosecutor’s challenge, and the domestic courts’ conflicting decisions.
* **The Court’s Assessments:**
* **Scope of the Case:** Clarifies that the complaint falls under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Addresses the admissibility of the application, rejecting the Government’s argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted. It then examines the merits, finding an interference with Mr. Kulyk’s property rights.
* The Court questions the lawfulness of the interference due to the vague regulations and the small portion of land within the protected zone.
* It finds a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the deprivation was disproportionate, as Mr. Kulyk received no compensation.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for damages. The Court orders Ukraine to restore the land title or provide compensation or comparable property and awards EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Property Rights:** The core finding is that Ukraine violated Mr. Kulyk’s right to property due to the arbitrary and disproportionate deprivation of his land.
* **Lack of Clear Legal Basis:** The Court highlighted the problem of vaguely defined regulations regarding “protected shoreline belts” and the absence of formal boundaries, which led to the arbitrary application of the law.
* **Disproportionate Interference:** The Court emphasized that depriving someone of their property without compensation, especially when the land has been used for agricultural purposes for decades and only a negligible portion falls within a restricted zone, is a disproportionate interference.
* **Restitution or Compensation:** The Court ordered Ukraine to either restore Mr. Kulyk’s title to the land or provide adequate compensation or comparable property, setting a precedent for similar cases.
**** This decision highlights the importance of clear and precise legal regulations, especially when dealing with property rights. It also underscores the need for fair compensation when property is taken for public interest purposes. This case may have implications for other similar land disputes in Ukraine, particularly those involving vaguely defined environmental protection zones.
