Official text of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Galyna Stepanivna NOGA v. Ukraine)
The European Court of Human Rights concluded that the recovery of the disputed forest land into State ownership pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring compliance with the principle of the rule of law and was in the public interest, while the applicant had failed to exercise due diligence when acquiring the land and had knowingly accepted the risks associated with its acquisition.
According to the circumstances of the case, in 2008 the applicant purchased a plot of land from company “N” under a sale and purchase agreement.
In May 2011, a prosecutor brought proceedings in the interests of the State seeking recovery of the plot of land from company “N” and the applicant on the grounds that the land in question formed part of the forest fund and was owned by the State.
The final decision in the case was delivered on June 22, 2016: the courts at all three levels granted the claim, finding that the disputed plot belonged to forest land, which only the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, rather than the settlement council that had removed the plot from the State forest fund and reclassified it as recreational land, had the authority to dispose of.
Later, in June 2017, the applicant brought proceedings against the village council and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine seeking compensation for the value of the property. The courts dismissed her claim, stating that the claim for compensation should have been brought against her counterparty under the sale and purchase agreement – company “N”.
In assessing compliance with the principle of proportionality, the ECHR found no failure to strike a fair balance between the public and private interests at stake. The Court emphasized that the applicant should have exercised particular diligence before entering into the sale and purchase agreement, since she could have been aware that the plot belonged to a special category of land and of the risk that her title to it could be terminated, given the judicial proceedings concerning the right to dispose of that land that had taken place between 2004 and 2010.
The ECHR also drew attention to the substantial difference between the price paid by the applicant for the plot of land – UAH 75,055, approximately EUR 6,800 – and its appraised value – UAH 528,366, approximately EUR 48,500 – which raised doubts as to the lawfulness of the sale and purchase agreement.
In view of these circumstances, the ECHR concluded that, despite the absence of any prospect of obtaining compensation for the property taken from her, the applicant had failed to exercise due diligence and had knowingly accepted the risks associated with acquiring the disputed plot of land. Accordingly, there were no grounds for finding that the fair balance of interests had been upset in this case.
