Protection of the right to property in the case law of the European court of human rights

Khrystyna Maikut; Uliana Andrusiv; Yurii Yurkevych; Alona Dutko; Olha Zaiats

doi:10.34069/AI/2020.28.04.54

Khrystyna Maikut Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2196-4023
Uliana Andrusiv Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2300-5114
Yurii Yurkevych Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4097-9925
Alona Dutko Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5622-1046
Olha Zaiats Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2872-5567

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.28.04.54

Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, interference with the ownership right, lawfulness of interference, legitimate purpose of interference, proportionality of interference, control over the use of property, public (common) interest.

Abstract

The contribution describes the peculiarities of the protection of the right to property in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It has been found that, given the peculiarities of the legal nature of the right to property, it requires state regulation and may be subject to restriction and interference. Attention is drawn to the predication of any potential interference with the right to property on a general principle, according to which everyone has the right to peacefully enjoy their property.

The article further clarifies the forms of interference with the ownership of individuals and legal entities by the state, such as expropriation of property and control over use of property. The triple normative regulation of property relations is investigated, and the elements of the relevant structure were covered in detail.

The contents of the three-component test, in particular, its elements, such as the legality of interference with the right to property, the legitimacy of the purpose of such interference, and a fair balance between the interests of protection of the right to property and public interests, are expounded with reference to the awards of the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention was paid to legality provisions. The contribution further dwells on the conceptual and categorical framework of the terms “general interest” and “public interest.”

The authors complete their scientific inquiry with appropriate generalisations and a summary.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Khrystyna Maikut, Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Uliana Andrusiv, Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Yurii Yurkevych, Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Head of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Alona Dutko, Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Olha Zaiats, Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Civil Law Disciplines Department, Law Faculty, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine.

References

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950, November 4). URL https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Dudash, T.I. (2014). Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Kyiv: Alerta.

ECHR, Case Budchenko v. Ukraine (2014, April 24). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-142517

ECHR, Case Cyprus v. Turkey (2001, May 10). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59454

ECHR, Case Demades v. Turkey (2003, July, 31) URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61272

ECHR, Case Intersplav v. Ukraine (2007, January 9). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-78872.

ECHR, Case James and others v. the United Kingdom (1986, February 21). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-57507.

ECHR, Case Loizidou v. Turkey (1996, December 18). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58007

ECHR, Case National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom (1997, October 23). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58109

ECHR, Case Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (1995, October 31). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57961

ECHR, Case Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine (2003, April 29). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-61059.

ECHR, Case Salov v. Ukraine (2003, September 6). URL https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_428

ECHR, Case Scollo v. Italy (1995, September 28). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-57936

ECHR, Case Seryavin and Others v. Ukraine (2011, February 10). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-103279.

ECHR, Case Shchokin v. Ukraine (2010, October 14). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-100944.

ECHR, Case Shchokin v. Ukraine (2010, October 14). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-100944.

ECHR, Case Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy (1995, September 28). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-57937

ECHR, Case The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (2000, November 23). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-59051

ECHR, Case Tregubenko v. Ukraine (2004, November 2). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-67248.

ECHR, Case Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (2007, November 22). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-83421.

ECHR, Case Xenides-Aestis v. Turkey (2005, December 22). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71800

ECHR, Decision as to the Admissibility by State Holding Company LUGANSKVUGILLYA against Ukraine (2009, January27). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91343

ECHR, Decision Velikoda v. Ukraine (2014, June 3). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145274

ECHR, of Serkov v. Ukraine (2011, July 7). URL http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-105536

EHRR, Case Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom (1998, September 23). URL https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58240%22]}

Fuley, T., Hembach, H. (2011). Application of the European Convention on Human Rights by Commercial Courts. Kyiv: Istyna.

Fuley, T.I. (2015). Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in the Administration of Justice. Kyiv: National School of Judges of Ukraine.

Fuley, T.I. (2017). Application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights in the Administration of Justice. Kyiv: VAITE.

Hudyma, D.A. (2016). The Principle of the Legality in the Restriction of Physical Freedom in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Bulletin of the National Academy of Law of Ukraine, Vol. 3 (86), pp. 128–140.

Maidanyk, R. (October 22–23, 2015). Proportionality (Commensurability) and Property Right: Doctrine and Jurisprudence. Property Right: European Experience and Ukrainian Realities. International Conference of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Kyiv.

Michurin, Y.O. (2009). Restriction of Property Rights of Individuals (Civil Law Aspect): Doctoral Thesis. Kyiv.

Novikov, D.V. (2016). Restriction of the Right to property in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Law of Ukraine. Our Law, Vol. 2, pp. 162–167.

Novikov, D.V. (2016). Safeguards of Property Right in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights, European Perspectives, Vol. 2, pp. 93–94.

Pogrebnyak, S.P. (2008). Fundamental Principles of Law (Substantive Description). Kharkiv: Pravo.

Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (March 20, 1952). URL https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_535

Romanyuk, Y.M., Maistrenko, L.A. (2014). Specific Attributes of the Application of Confiscation of Funds as an Administrative Penalty for Violation of the Green Corridor Customs Regulations. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Vol. 11 (171), pp. 26–38.

Syusyel, I. (October 22–23, 2015). Balance of Public and Private Interests in the Context of the Protection of the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Property Right: European Experience and Ukrainian Realities. International Conference of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Kyiv.

Venice Commission Report on the Rule of Law (April 4, 2011). URL https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)003rev-ukr