FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MARKETTRANS, PP v. UKRAINE(Application no. 16989/15)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG26 June 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Markettrans, Pp v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Kateřina Šimáčková, President, María Elósegui, Gilberto Felici, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 16989/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 March 2015 by a private enterprise Markettrans, Pp (“the applicant company”), located in Kherson;the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, and to declare the remainder of the application (complaints under Article 6 of the Convention) inadmissible;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 June 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case concerns the applicant company’s deprivation of property that it had bought from a trade union organisation following an action brought by a prosecutor seeking the return of the ownership of that property to the State.Background information2. The historical and legal background pertaining to the status and functioning of trade unions in Ukraine has been summarised in detail by the Court in the judgment Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine (no. 5876/15, §§ 6-23 and 38-40, 9 October 2018).3. As regards the present case, the Court notes that in 1960 the trade unions in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Ukrainian SSR”) were united under an umbrella organisation – the Ukrainian Republican Council of Trade Unions (“the Ukrprofrada”). The latter created a wide network of healthcare and tourist facilities and organisations all over Ukraine that was managed by various branches of the Ukrprofrada, including the Ukrainian Central Council on Tourism and Excursions (“the UCCTE”).4. In 1986 the local association of fishermen and hunters of the Kherson Region transferred the ownership of its tourist base in the village of Krynky (the Ostap Vyshnia tourist base – hereinafter “the base”) to the UCCTE.5. In October 1990 the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Ukraine (“the Federation”) was founded; it declared itself independent of the State, and of all bodies of the Ukrainian SSR and the Soviet Union. The Federation was also declared the legal successor to the Ukrprofrada.6. On 18 November 1990 an agreement between the General Conference of Trade Unions of the Soviet Union and the Federation was approved (“the 1990 agreement”), whereby various assets were “reserved” (закріплені) for the Federation.7. In August-October 1991 the UCCTE was reorganised into a closed joint stock company named Ukrproftur; its articles of association were duly registered by the authorities. Ukrproftur obtained ownership rights over all trade union property used for tourist activities. It had a network of its subsidiaries in all regions of Ukraine including the Kherson Region.8. By a resolution of 10 April 1992 (“Resolution no. 2268”), the Parliament of (by then) independent Ukraine ordered that, until a list of legal successors to the USSR-wide civic organisations of the former Soviet Union had been drawn up, all assets belonging to such entities that were located on the territory of Ukraine were to be temporarily transferred to the State Property Fund of Ukraine (“the SPFU”), an organisation set up to manage State-owned property.9. By a resolution of 4 February 1994, Parliament further ordered that until the owners of the above-mentioned assets had been determined by means of legislation, those assets were to be regarded as State property. It appears that no such legislation has been passed to date.10. As early as 1997, the domestic courts were called upon to deal with cases concerning the status of property that had belonged to the Soviet trade unions. Apart from the relevant judgment delivered by the Higher Arbitration Court of Ukraine (“the HACU”) – which was described in detail in paragraphs 20-23 of Batkivska Turbota Foundation (cited above) – that court also examined a similar action against Ukrproftur. By a judgment of 20 January 1997, the HACU dismissed the SPFU’s claims and found that the assets that had formed the basis for the creation of Ukrproftur had not been in the USSR-wide Council of Trade Unions’ possession and were therefore not covered by the resolutions of 10 April 1992 and 4 February 1994.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation