661 citiri

Măsura contestată a Consiliului local al orașului Kiev a frustrat, așadar, așteptarea legitimă a companiei reclamantei pentru certitudine juridică, pe baza ideii de sfințenie a contractelor și a regulii explicite a dreptului intern

51. The Court notes at the outset that the measure at issue had serious consequences for the applicant company because it prevented any further use of the plot of land for construction purposes in view of the clear domestic-law ban (see paragraphs 26 and 28 above), despite a business plan developed by the company that involved foreign investment (see paragraph 15 above). The decision to reclassify the plot of land as a public garden zone might have been an important measure to comply with public opinion as regards the fate of the land. However it was hardly compatible with the authorities’ obligations under the lease contract and the domestic-law requirement prescribing that the lessor must not prevent the lessee from using the plot of land (see paragraph 27 above). The impugned measure of Kyiv City Council thus frustrated the applicant’s company legitimate expectation for legal certainty based on the idea of sanctity of contracts and explicit rule of domestic law. The Court has stated earlier that uncertainty – be it legislative, administrative or arising from practices applied by the authorities – is a serious source of concern when assessing the State’s conduct under Article 1 of Protocol 1 (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 151, ECHR 2004‑V).


56. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Hotărârea din 17 decembrie 2020, Budivelno versus Ucraina, definitivă, disponibilă aici)

Back To Top