Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Bilko and Others v. Ukraine*:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n
The case concerned three Ukrainian nationals who were initially granted land plots by the Gostomel Village Council as individuals affected by the Chernobyl disaster. A local prosecutor later challenged these land allocations, arguing the land had already been assigned to an agricultural company. The Ukrainian courts sided with the prosecutor, effectively depriving the applicants of their land. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property) because the applicants were deprived of their land without compensation, placing a disproportionate burden on them. The Court struck out the application of the second applicant due to lack of interest in pursuing the case.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Subject Matter:** The case focuses on the deprivation of land titles and the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
\n * **Background:** Details the initial allocation of land to the applicants, the subsequent legal challenge by the prosecutor, and the decisions of the Ukrainian courts.
\n * **Preliminary Issues:** Addresses the death of one applicant and the continuation of proceedings by her daughter, as well as the lack of engagement from the second applicant.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** This section contains the core legal analysis. It examines whether the deprivation of property was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate.
\n * **The Court’s Assessment:**
\n * **Admissibility:** The Court declared the application admissible for the first and third applicants, dismissing the government’s argument regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
\n * **Merits:** The Court found that while the interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, it was disproportionate because the applicants were not compensated for the loss of their land.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** States that the applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, so no sum was awarded.
\n * **Decision:** Formally declares the standing of the deceased applicant’s daughter, strikes out the second applicant’s case, declares the application admissible for the remaining applicants, and holds that there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**<\/p>\n
* **Violation of Property Rights:** The core finding is that depriving individuals of their property without any form of compensation violates their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
\n * **Proportionality:** The decision emphasizes the importance of proportionality in cases of deprivation of property. Even if the interference is lawful and pursues a legitimate aim, it must not impose a disproportionate burden on the individual.
\n * **Good Faith:** The Court considered that the applicants acquired the land in good faith.
\n * **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The decision clarifies that the possibility of obtaining damages, without reinstatement of title, is relevant for assessing proportionality, not for the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
\n * **”Good Governance” Principle:** The “good governance” principle requires the authorities to act promptly in correcting their mistakes and imposes an obligation of payment of adequate compensation to the good-faith owners.<\/p>\n
**** This decision is important for Ukraine because it highlights the state’s obligation to ensure that individuals are not unfairly burdened when errors are made in land allocation. It reinforces the need for compensation or other forms of reparation in cases where individuals are deprived of their property due to the state’s mistakes.<\/p>\n