CASE OF NADTOCHIY AGAINST UKRAINE AND 4 OTHER CASES

Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)221 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Five cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 September 2025 at the 1535th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 32899/13 NADTOCHIY 20/09/2022 20/09/2022 62006/09 MITSOPOULOS 09/12/2021 09/12/2021 07/09/2023 07/09/2023 70445/13 SHMAKOVA 11/01/2024 11/01/2024 75237/10 BRYG-A, TOV 09/12/2021 09/12/2021 15/02/2024 15/02/2024 77736/12 YAKOBSON 21/11/2024 21/11/2024   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established on account of the failure of the domestic courts to examine the proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ property rights which resulted in the annulment of the applicants’ bona fide property titles without compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), as well as eviction from rented housing without a proportionality assessment in the Yakobson case (violation of Article 8), and quashing of final domestic judgment in civil matters in extraordinary review proceedings on the basis of “newly-discovered circumstances” in the Mitsopoulos case (violation of Article 6 § 1)   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -          of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and -          of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to execute the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2025)618);   Noting also the separate judgment on the application of Article 41 in the case of Bryg-A, TOV v. Ukraine, final 15 February 2024 in which the Court struck the application out of the list;   Considering that the question of individual measures was therefore resolved, given that in the Nadtochiy, Shmakova, Mitsopoulos and Yakobson cases the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court represents the value of the property of which the applicants had been deprived, and in the Mitsopoulos case the title on the apartment was restored;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Maksymenko and Gerasymenko v. Ukraine and the Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine groups of cases also in the light of the Court’s findings in these cases, and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   Recalling that the measures required to address the shortcomings concerning the quashing of final domestic judgments in civil matters in extraordinary review proceedings on the basis of “newly-discovered circumstances” were examined in the framework of the Lizanets v. Ukraine group (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)30) ;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases;   CONCLUDES that the necessary individual measures have been adopted;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures in the framework of the Maksymenko and Gerasymenko v. Ukraine and Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine groups of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.