FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 58785/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
30 April 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Levchenko v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 58785/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 November 2015 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Viktor Mykolayovych Levchenko (“the applicant”), who was born in 1961 and lives in Khrystynivka, and was represented by Mr M. Aleksyeyenko, a lawyer practising in Khrystynivka;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the seizure of the applicant’s car within criminal proceedings in respect of third parties, allegedly in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2. On 4 April 2014 the applicant bought a used car. It was later established that it had been sold to him on the basis of a forged authority form. 3. In December 2014 a criminal investigation was launched into fraudulent property appropriation in that regard. 4. On 28 May 2015, while the applicant was driving the car in question, the Uman traffic police stopped him and withheld the car as being wanted by the police. It was taken to the local traffic police pound. 5. On 25 June 2015 the investigator applied to the Zhytomyr Bohunskyi District Court (“the Bohunskyi Court”) for seizure of the car. 6. On 30 June 2015 the Bohunskyi Court allowed the above-mentioned application in a hearing attended by the prosecutor but without the applicant having been notified thereof. 7. The applicant challenged the above-mentioned ruling on appeal, once he had discovered its existence. He referred, in particular, to Article 171 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided that, if an investigator did not apply for seizure of property within one day of its being temporarily withheld, it was to be immediately returned to the person from whom it had been withheld. In the applicant’s case the investigator had, however, applied for the car seizure around one month after its withholding. The applicant also argued that the measure had been disproportionate. 8. On 5 August 2015 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal rejected the above-mentioned appeal as unfounded. It noted, in general terms, that the Bohunskyi Court had complied with the applicable legal provisions and that the legitimate owner of the car had yet to be established. 9. On 25 March 2016 the applicant was granted the procedural status of victim in the ongoing criminal proceedings. 10. He applied for the lifting of the seizure on many occasions. 11. On 1 December 2016 the Bohunskyi Court allowed one of those applications in part. Although the court upheld the ban on the disposal or encumbrance of the car, the judge ruled that it should be transferred to the applicant for safekeeping. It was noted that the applicant had the procedural status of victim, the car did not show any traces of having been involved in an offence and its continued storage in an open outdoor space in the police pound from 28 May 2015 meant that it would deteriorate. 12. On 4 November 2019 the same court lifted the seizure altogether. It noted that not a single investigative measure had been carried out within the criminal investigation in question since September 2016 and that no suspicion had been announced in that regard. The judge also referred to the fact that the applicant’s bona fide ownership of the car had never been questioned. 13. On 17 June 2020 the criminal investigation was discontinued, since it was found to be impossible to identify any suspects.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation