Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Case Facts. – 2.1. The Ukrainian Court’s Position. – 2.2 The ECtHR’s Position. – 3. Newly Discovered Circumstances in Ukrainian Legislation and Doctrine. – 4. Concluding Remarks.
Background: The protection of property rights is one of the cornerstones of legal order. If we were uncertain whether ownership would be protected from claims or whether contract obligations would be executed properly, we could not regulate relations effectively. Courts play a crucial role in this mechanism of protecting the owner’s rights, giving parties possibilities for defence.
This note is related to one of the last judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the focus of which is on newly discovered circumstances and the principle of legal certainty. The facts of this case arose from a property sale contract with a condition, the validity of which led to the consideration of multiple cases by different Ukrainian courts.
Methods: In light of the above, an analysis of this ECtHR judgment, as well as the final and interim decisions of Ukrainian courts, with regard to Ukrainian legislation and case law was prepared. The main challenge was the absence of the oldest decisions of national courts in the state register of court decisions, which contains only decisions from 2011. Even so, the facts of this case were described in detail in the latest courts decisions.
Results and Conclusions: The following analysis provides an argument against reopening procedure without proper grounds, which lead to the violation of the right to a fair trial in civil procedure in Ukraine.