FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BUDIVELNO INVESTYTSIYNA GRUPA 1 v. UKRAINE(Application no. 56903/10)      JUDGMENT(Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG11 January 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Budivelno Investytsiyna Grupa 1 v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Mattias Guyomar, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 30 November 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had been prevented by the local authorities from carrying out the erection of a multi-storied residential building and that it had received no compensation in that regard.2. In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2020 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the local authorities’ decision to revoke their earlier decision to lease the plot of land to the applicant company for construction purposes and to designate that plot as a public garden zone. In particular, the Court found serious shortcomings in the conduct of the local authorities who had, on the one hand, authorised the construction despite being aware of the public disquiet in that regard and, on the other hand, failed to explore any alternative solutions to mitigate the harsh consequences for the applicant company of the termination of the lease. The Court further found that, when dismissing the applicant company’s compensation claim, the domestic courts had neither carried out the requisite balancing exercise between the private and public interests at stake nor provided sufficient reasons for their decisions. In the Court’s view, the applicant company had therefore suffered an excessive individual burden. The Court also held that there was no need to examine the applicant company’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention separately (see Budivelno Investytsiyna Grupa 1 v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 56903/10, §§ 44-56 and 59, 17 December 2020).3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant company claimed just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage which consisted of (i) 57,202,743.63 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) of loss that had allegedly arisen from the applicant company’s inability to fulfil its obligations under a contract of 11 March 2008 concluded with a foreign investor; and (ii) 11,689,920 United States dollars (USD) for loss of profit. The applicant company further claimed that as a result of the domestic authorities’ hindering of its business activities, its reputation had been seriously damaged. The applicant company submitted that the damage could not be quantified and asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage on an equitable basis. Lastly, the applicant company claimed USD 10,000 and UAH 63,604 in costs and expenses (ibid., § 61).4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready to be decided, the Court reserved the issue and invited the Government and the applicant to submit their written observations within three months and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid.

Outcome for Article 41: violation