ISSN 2663-0583 (Online)
ISSN 2663-0575 (Print)
  • Home
  • Proportionality of Interference with the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property During the Seizure of Property in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine
"

Proportionality of Interference with the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property During the Seizure of Property in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine

Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Principle of peaceful enjoyment of property in ECtHR case-law. – 3. The ECtHR criteria for assessing the legitimacy of state interference in the right of peaceful enjoyment of the property. – 3.1. Grounds of the state interference provided by law. – 3.2. The purpose of interfering with property rights. – 4. 4. Determination of the principle of proportionality in the Ukrainian legal doctrine and its meaning for the limits of interference with property rights chosen. – 5. Conclusions.

Full Text:

DOI

Abstract About Author(s) References Reviews

Abstract

 This article considers relevant science and law enforcement practice issues of state intervention's legitimacy in the right to peaceful property enjoyment in criminal proceedings during property seizure. These issues are considered everywhere through international instruments' prism, particularly the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the ECtHR case-law. Based on the ECtHR case law, the authors analyze the conditions under which the state may interfere in exercising a protected right, often called criteria for intervention. Based on the fact restrictions are permissible if they are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society and pursue a legitimate goal, the authors consider these conditions through the lens of national law enforcement practices of Ukrainian criminal proceedings. The authors emphasize the relevance of these criteria of the legality of individual rights restriction in criminal proceedings since when applying for property seizure, the Ukrainian legislator requires investigating judges to consider reasonableness and restriction proportionality of property rights, and apply the least onerous seizure method, not suspend or excessively restrict a person's lawful business activities, or other consequences significantly affecting others’ interests. Due to the amendment of the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the practice is slowly approaching the European Court of Human Rights practice's European standards. However, proper systematic, logical and consistent court decisions limiting the human right to peaceful property possession remain critical. Based on the study, the authors offer a model of logical reasoning, following which the investigating judges can correctly formulate the motivational part of the decision to satisfy or deny the request for property seizure. Particular attention is paid to the reasonableness, suitability, necessity, and proportionality of the means of restricting the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property and describes each of them.

About Authors


Kaplina Oksana,
Dr. Sc. (Law), Prof., Head of Department of Criminal Procedure,
Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine

Fomin Serhiy,
PhD (Law), Judge of the Criminal Cassation Court, Ukraine

References

  1. A Fosculle, ‘The principle of proportionality’ (2015) 1 (104) Comparative constitutional review 159-163. 
  2.   A Barak, Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and their Limitations (Cambridge University Press 2012) 638; АА Bazhanov, ‘Problems of realization of the principle of proportionality in judicial practice’ (2018) 6 (13) Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law RN 129.
  3. AA Bazhanov, ‘Substantiation of the principle of proportionality in the practice of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (1950—1960)’ [‘Obosnovanye Pryntsypa Sorazmernosty V Praktyke Federalnoho Konstytutsyonnoho Suda Hermanyy’] (2018) 5 Journal of the University of OE Kutafina (MSLUK) 159-168.
  4. Baklanov v Russia (App No 68443/01) ECHR 9 July 2005, § 39-46 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69317> accessed 6 November 2020.
  5. BN Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (Yale University Press 1921). <https://archive.org/details/NatureOfTheJudicialProcess/page/n183> accessed 2 November 2020.
  6. Bokova v Russia (App No 27879/13) ECHR 16 April 2019, § 54, 59. <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192463> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  7. Borzhonov v Russia (n 10).
  8. Case № 297/1390/17 (Berehiv District Court of the Zakarpatsky Region, 26 June 2017) <http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/67410143> accessed 10 November 2020.
  9. Case No 308/1740/17 (Uzhhorod City District Court, 23 February 2017) <http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/64906747> accessed 10 November 2020.
  10. Cohen-Elia (n 54); Pogrebnyak (n 43) 49-55.
  11. Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [1950] ETS 5 <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  12. Council of Europe, Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No 11 [1952] ETS 9 <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/search-on-treaties/-/conventions/rms/090000168006377c> accessed 5 November 2020.
  13. D Harris, M O'Boyle, K Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Third Edition, OUP 2014) Art 513.
  14. Denisova and Moiseyeva v Russia (App No 16903/03) ECHR 1 April 2010, §§ 55-65 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98018> accessed 6 November 2020.
  15. DG Shustov, The principle of proportionality in the constitutional law of Israel [Pryntsyp Proportsyonalnosty V Konstytutsyonnom Prave Yzraylia] (Legenda 2015) 99.
  16. East/West Alliance Limited v Ukraine (App No 19336/04) ECHR 23 January 2014, § 185. < http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-140029> accessed 4 November 2020.
  17. Feldman and Slovyanskyy bank v Ukraine (App No 42758/05) ECHR 21 December 2017, § 55 < http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-179557> accessed 6 November 2020.
  18. Gabric v Croatia (App No 9702/04) ECHR 5 February 2009, § 39 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91134> accessed 10 November 2020.
  19. H O'Boyle, Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edn, Oxford university press 2014).
  20. Handyside v the United Kingdom (App No 5493/72) ECHR 7 December 1976, § 48 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499> accessed 4 November 2020. 
  21. Handyside v the United Kingdom (n 35).
  22. J McBride, European Convention on Human Rights and Criminal Procedure. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed (KIS, Council of Europe 2019) 101- 102.
  23. James and Others (n 8); East/West Alliance Limited v Ukraine (n 33).
  24. James and Others v the United Kingdom (n 8).
  25. Kruslin v France (App No 11801/85) ECHR 24 April 1990, § 30 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57626> accessed 6 November 2020.
  26. M Cohen-Elia, I Porat, The American Method of Weighing Interests and the German Proportionality Test: Historical Roots (2011) 3 Comparative Constitutional Review 61; Pogrebnyak (n 43) 51.
  27. Maestri v Italy (App No 39748/98) ECHR 17 February 2004, § 30 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61638> accessed 6 November 2020.
  28. OI Andreeva, The ratio of rights and responsibilities of the state and the individual in the rule of law and the specifics of its manifestation in the field of criminal proceedings (theoretical aspect) [Sootnoshenye Prav I Obiazannostei Hosudarstva I Lychnosty V Pravovm Hosudarstve I Spetsyfika Eho Proiavlenyia V Sfere Uholovnoho Sudoproyzvodstva (teoretycheskyi aspekt)] (MK Sviridova ed, Tomsk University Publishing House 2004) 138.
  29. Olsson v Sweden (n 31) (№ 1)) from 24 March 1988, complaint № 10465/83, § 58; VA Tumanov (ed), European Court of Human Rights Selected decisions in 2 vols [Evropeiskyi Sud Po Pravam Cheloveka Izbrannye Reshenyia] (Vol 1, Norm, 2000); D Harris, M O'Boyle, K Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (OUP 2014).
  30. Papastavrou and Others v Greece (App No 46372/99) ECHR 10 April 2003, final from 10 July 2003, § 33 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61019> accessed 5 November 2020.
  31. PM Rabinovych (ed), OM Lutsiv, SP Dobryansky, OZ Pankevich, SP Rabinovych, The principle of the rule of law: problems of theory and practice [Pryntsyp Verkhovenstva Prava Problemy Teorii Ta Praktyky] (Spolom 2016) Art 65. 
  32. R Maidanyk, ‘Proportionality and property rights: doctrine and case law’ ‘Proportsiinist (spivrozmirnist) I Pravo Vlasnosti Doktryna I Sudova Praktyka’ (2016) 1 Law of Ukraine 41-54.
  33. R Pound, Jurisprudence, vol. 2. (West Publishing Co 1959) 330–331.
  34. Raimondo v Italy (App No 46372/99) ECHR 22 February 1994, § 27; Andrews v the United Kingdom (App No 49584/99) ECHR 26 September 2002; Adamczyk v Poland (App № 28551/04) ECHR 7 November 2006; Borzhonov v Russia (App No 18274/04) ECHR 22 January 2009, § 57.
  35. Series I. Research and abstracts 26-40; PM Rabinovich, SE Fedik, ‘Peculiarities of interpretation of legal norms on human rights (based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights)’ [‘Osoblyvosti Tlumachennia Yurydychnykh Norm Shchodo Prav Liudyny (za Materialamy Praktyky Yevropeiskoho Sudu Z Prav Liudyny’] (2004) 5 Proceedings of the Lviv Laboratory of Human and Citizen Rights of the Research Institute of State Building and Local Self-Government of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 27.
  36. Serkov v Ukraine (App No 39766/05) ECHR 7 July 2011, § 35-36 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105536> accessed 6 November 2020.
  37. Shvydka v Ukraine (App No 17888/12) ECHR 30 October 2014, § 33 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147445> accessed 2 November 2020. See also Gladysheva v Russia (App No 7097/10) ECHR 6 December 2011, § 77; Brumarescu v Romania (App No 28342/95) ECHR 23 January 2001, § 78; Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (Apps Nos 7151/75) ECHR 23 September 1982, and 7152/75, § 69-74.
  38. Silver and Others v the United Kingdom (Apps Nos 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75 and 7136/75) ECHR from 25 March 1983, §§ 87-88 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57577> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  39. SP Pogrebnyak, ‘The principle of proportionality in judicial activity’ [‘Pryntsyp Proportsiinosti U Sudovii Diialnosti’] (2012) 2 Philosophy of law and general theory of law 49-55.
  40. SP Rabinovych, ‘Peculiarities of interpretation of legal norms on human rights (based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights)’ [‘Osoblyvosti Tlumachennia Yurydychnykh Norm Shchodo Prav Liudyny (za Materialamy Praktyky Yevropeiskoho Sudu Z Prav Liudyny)’] in Proceedings of the Lviv Laboratory of Human and Civil Rights (Series I, Research and abstracts, Issue 5, Astron 2004) p 31-32.
  41. Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (Apps Nos 7151/75 and 7152/75) ECHR 23 September 1982, § 61 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57580> accessed 5 November 2020; Depalle v France (App No 34044/02) ECHR 29 March 2010, § 77; Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v Ukraine (Apps Nos 846/16 and 1075/16) ECHR 22 May 2018, § 56; Andriy Rudenko v Ukraine (App No 35041/05) ECHR 21 December 2010, §§ 35-37.
  42. Sukhanov and Ilchenko v Ukraine (Apps Nos 68385/10 and 71378/10) ECHR 26 June 2014, § 53 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145014> accessed 6 November 2020.
  43. TA Aleinikoff, ‘Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing’ (1987) 96 (5) The Yale Law Journal 943–1005; Bazhanov (n 53).
  44. The same detailed argumentation can be observed in judgement in the case East/West Alliance Limited v Ukraine (n 33).
  45. The Sunday Times v the United Kingdom (App No 6538/74) ECHR 26 April 1979 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57584> accessed 5 November 2020.
  46. The United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1966] Treaty Series 993 <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  47. The United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1966] Treaty Series 999 <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  48. This approach can be seen in the Judgment of the ECHR in the case Edwards v Malta (App No 17647/04) ECHR 24 October 2006, § 69 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77655> accessed 10 November 2020. 
  49. TI Dudash, ‘The case law of the European Court of Human Rights: a hermeneutic analysis’ [‘Praktyka Yevropeiskoho Sudu Z Prav Liudyny Hermenevtychnyi Analiz’] (2009) 21 The case law of the European Court of Human Rights: general theoretical research, 
  50. TI Fulei, 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 (ВАІТЕ 2017) 38.
  51. Tregubenko v Ukraine (App No 61333/00) ECHR 2 November 2004, § 53-54 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-67248> accessed 6 November 2020.
  52. UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948] 217 (III) A <https://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/documents/udhr_translations/eng.pdf> accessed 5 November 2020. 
  53. VG Gulumyan, ‘Principles of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (criticism and defense)’ [‘Pryntsypy Tolkovanyia Evropeiskoi Konventsyy Prav Cheloveka (krytyka Y Zashchyta)’] (2015) 3 (45) Journal of Constitutional Justice 17; 
  54. Y Romanyuk, ‘Interference with property rights in terms of its compliance with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: criteria of the European Court of Human Rights and the experience of Ukraine on some examples of case law’ (2016) 1 Law of Ukraine14-24.
  55. YO Yevtoshuk, ‘The principle of proportionality as a necessary component of the rule of law’ [‘Pryntsyp Proportsiinosti Yak Neobkhidna Skladova Verkhovenstva Prava’] (Candidate of Law Thesis, University of Economics and Law ‘KROK’ 2015). 
  56. Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v Ukraine (Apps Nos 846/16 and № 1075/16) ECHR 22 May 2018, § 98 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-183128> accessed 5 November 2020; Budchenko v Ukraine (App No 38677/06) ECHR 24 April 2014, § 40 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142517> accessed 2 November 2020. 

Reviews for article

Add a Review

Reviews are moderated and will be published after verification!
All comments not related to reviews of the article will be deleted!

 

Keywords

  • the seizure of property in criminal proceedings; proportionality of interference in constitutional law; the right to peaceful enjoyment of property; measures to ensure criminal proceedings; inviolability of property rights; criteria for the admissibility of restrictions of human rights

How to cite it?

  •  O Kaplina, S Fomin ‘Proportionality of Interference with the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property During the Seizure of Property in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine’ (2020) 4 (8) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 246-264.