FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BILKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 35442/13)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG23 October 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Bilko and Others 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. 35442/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 May 2013 by three Ukrainian nationals (“the applicants”), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table;the decision to give notice of the applicants’ complaint concerning the annulment of their titles to property to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, most recently Ms Marharyta Sokorenko, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The present case concerns a deprivation of the applicants’ titles to their plots of land as a result of the court proceedings instituted against them by a prosecutor. They complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.2. By decisions adopted between 18 October and 2 November 2001 and on 27 April 2004, the Gostomel Village Council (“the Council”) decided to provide the applicants, as persons who had suffered from the Chernobyl disaster and had been evacuated from the radioactively polluted territory, with plots of land to be allotted from the Council’s land reserve fund. On 9 August and 22 December 2005 the applicants each received from the State a deed of title to a plot of land measuring 3.2277 ha.3. In February 2012 a local prosecutor, acting in the interests of a local land authority, lodged a civil claim with the Irpin Town Court against the Council and the applicants, seeking the invalidation of the above decisions and deeds of titles. He argued, inter alia, that the plots of land transferred to the applicants had been earlier transferred for permanent use to agricultural company B.4. On 28 May 2012 the court rejected the claim. It found, in particular, that the 2001 and 2004 decisions had not specified the locations of the disputed plots, therefore there were no grounds to consider that they had been allocated to the applicants from company B.’s land.5. On 3 October 2012, following appeals by the prosecutor and company P. (allegedly company B.’s successor), the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of 28 May 2012 and recognised company B.’s rights to the disputed plots of land. It held that the lower court’s finding that the 2001 and 2004 decisions had not specified the location of the plots of land had been wrong: as confirmed by technical documents, the plots allocated to the applicants had been located on land previously transferred to company B., which on 10 May 2000 had received from the State a deed of title confirming its right of permanent use of that land. That deed had not been invalidated and there was no information indicating that company B.’s right of permanent use of the plots of land had been terminated.6. On 21 November 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the judgment of 3 October 2012.7. On 16 September 2016 the Council allocated a plot of land measuring 0.1 ha to the second applicant.8. On 16 December 2020 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government, asking them to provide observations on the subject matter. It instructed the applicants to appoint a representative.9. On 27 August 2021 the Government submitted their observations.10. By a letter of 23 September 2021, the Court again invited the applicants to appoint a representative.11. On 27 May 2024 the applicants sent a letter to the Court confirming their intent to pursue their complaints.12. By a letter of 18 June 2024, the Registry repeated their request for the applicants to appoint a representative.13. On 13 August 2024 the Court received a letter from the first and third applicants, who confirmed their interest in pursuing the case, but reported difficulties in appointing a representative.14. By a letter of 25 September 2024, sent via eComms, the applicants were invited to reply to the Government’s observations. They were informed of a decision to grant them leave to represent their case in the proceedings before the Court. The applicants did not download that letter.15. On 7 November 2024 the Court sent the above-mentioned letter, with the Government’s observations enclosed, to the applicants by post and by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. In the Court’s letters of 18 June, 25 September and 7 November 2024, the applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.16. On 6 December 2024 the first and the third applicants replied to the Government’s observations.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTPreliminary ISSUEs17.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation