We share another case where the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) changed the course of the matter!
In 2017, our client privatized a municipal building through a competitive tender. Seven years later, the prosecutor’s office decided this was impermissible and initiated proceedings to challenge the agreement [transaction]. Their arguments? Ranging from the ‘improper’ registration of the building to the ‘impossibility’ of its privatization.
We prepared a strong legal position, relying not only on Ukrainian legislation but also on key ECHR principles: the owner’s legitimate expectations, the protection of property rights, and the inadmissibility of shifting the state’s errors onto the purchaser.
And guess what? The appellate court, while upholding the first-instance decision in the client’s favor, placed emphasis specifically on the ECHR’s position!
Why is this important? Because it is another signal for business: ECHR case law works. How exactly?
1. A purchaser, provided they do not violate legislation when acquiring an asset, has a legitimate expectation of its further possession.
2. If, in the process of acquiring such an asset, errors were committed specifically by state or municipal authorities, then depriving the purchaser of their property rights would constitute excessive interference.
3. Under the given conditions, depriving the purchaser of the acquired asset places the burden of errors committed by state or municipal authorities squarely on them.
Given the large number of cases with similar content, we strongly recommend studying and applying the aforementioned ECHR case law for asset protection.