Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Kosmatska v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The case concerns a Ukrainian applicant who lost her title to a plot of land she had purchased from private individuals after a prosecutor successfully argued for its return to the State. The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (protection of property). The Court questioned the lawfulness of the domestic courts’ decisions, particularly regarding the application of the statute of limitations and the legal basis for reclaiming the land. It also found that the applicant bore a disproportionate burden because she received no compensation for the loss of her land. The Court ordered Ukraine to restore the applicant’s title to the land or provide equivalent compensation.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Introduction:** Briefly introduces the case, outlining that it concerns the applicant’s loss of land due to court judgments returning it to the State.
\n * **Facts:** Details the timeline of events, including the initial allocation of land by the Borodyanka District State Administration to individuals, the applicant’s purchase of the land, and the subsequent legal challenges initiated by the prosecutor. It also mentions related facts, such as other legal proceedings involving the applicant and other plots of land.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** Outlines the relevant Ukrainian laws, including the Constitution, Civil Code, and Land Code, which pertain to property rights, invalidation of deeds, and land ownership. It also mentions the 2025 amendments to the Civil Code aimed at protecting bona fide owners.
\n * **The Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and conclusions of the ECtHR.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Details the applicant’s complaint that her deprivation of property was unlawful and disproportionate.
\n * **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, which the Court rejects.
\n * **Merits:** Assesses whether the interference with the applicant’s property rights was lawful, pursued a public interest, and was proportionate. The Court finds serious doubts about the lawfulness of the interference, particularly regarding the application of the statute of limitations and the legal basis used by domestic courts. It also finds that the applicant bore a disproportionate burden because she received no compensation.
\n * **Application of Articles 41 and 46:** Discusses just satisfaction (compensation) and the execution of the judgment. The Court orders Ukraine to restore the applicant’s title to the land or provide equivalent compensation.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Violation of Property Rights:** The core finding is that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by depriving the applicant of her property without fair compensation.
\n * **Doubts on Lawfulness:** The Court raised significant concerns about the domestic courts’ interpretation and application of Ukrainian law, particularly regarding the statute of limitations and the grounds for invalidating the applicant’s title.
\n * **Disproportionate Burden:** The Court emphasized that the applicant bore a disproportionate burden because she lost her land without receiving any compensation.
\n * **Requirement for Restitution or Compensation:** The Court ordered Ukraine to either restore the applicant’s title to the land or provide monetary compensation or comparable property.
\n * **Importance of “Good Governance”:** The decision highlights the principle of “good governance,” stating that the State should bear the risk of its own mistakes and not remedy them at the expense of individuals who acted in good faith.<\/p>\n
**** This decision could have implications for similar cases in Ukraine where individuals have lost property due to irregularities in privatization or land allocation processes. It underscores the importance of ensuring that any deprivation of property is lawful, pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate, including the provision of fair compensation.<\/p>\n