In the age of information society and given the current extent of globalization, intangible assets acquire the significance never existing before, and sometimes this significance even exceeds that of tangible assets. This trend creates the need for establishing and improving the legal structures of ownership and use of such assets, as well as their protection against unlawful interference. This is fully applicable to the entrenchment of the right to goodwill and clientele, and their protection at civil law. The purpose of the article is to study the concept, grounds and conditions of goodwill and clientele protection according to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECHR). It is found that there is a well-established ECHR practice of recognizing intangible assets, such as goodwill and clientele, as property within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author has ascertained that the ECHR practice recognizes the right to goodwill (clientele) regardless of its formal entrenchment at the level of national legislation. The subjects of this right may be individuals as well as legal entities which carry out professional and (or) entrepreneurial activity of a certain type bringing them profit. The list of such activities is not exhaustive and may be extended. The right to goodwill (clientele) may emerge on the basis of objective (the activities concerned are conducted for a long time; a special legal status is acquired; licenses and permits as prescribed by law are obtained) but also subjective (the subject’s actual business reputation) factors. It is shown that the ECHR practice identifies the following conditions for protection of goodwill: the applicant should possess a certain extent of goodwill; the applicant should be able to use the goodwill while implementing a particular activity; the fact of illegal interference with the applicant’s right to possess and use the goodwill should be established; such interference should result in property damage to the applicant. The article also analyzes the ways of goodwill protection which may be property damage compensation as well as compensation of moral harm. Since the ECHR practice is used as a source of law in Ukraine, goodwill and (or) clientele should be provided with protection under civil law. As long as the right to goodwill and (or) clientele is not formally entrenched at the level of national legislation, the possibility of possession, use of goodwill and (or) the clientele, and their protection should be recognized as a legally protected interest.

List of legal documents 
 

Legislation 
1. Podatkovyi kodeks Ukrainy [The Tax Code of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 2 hrudnia 2010 r. № 2755-VI. URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/2755-17/print1467264005350874 (accessed: 01.04.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
2. Polozhennia (standart) bukhhalterskoho obliku 19 “Obiednannia pidpryiemstv”, zatverdzhenyi nakazom Ministerstva finansiv Ukrainy [Accounting Provision (Standard) 19 “Association of Enterprises” Approved by Order of the Finance Ministry of Ukraine] vid 7 lypnia 1999 r. № 163. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ z0499-99 (accessed: 01.04.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
3. Pro deiaki pytannia praktyky zastosuvannia hospodarskymy sudamy zakonodavstva pro informatsiiu [On Some Issues of Economic Courts’ Practice of Application of Information Legislation]: informatsiinyi lyst Vyshchoho hospodarskoho sudu Ukrainy [the Information Letter of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine] vid 28 bereznia 2007 № 01-8/184. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v_184600-07 (accessed: 01.04.2018) (in Ukrainian).

Cases

4. Van Marle and others v. The Netherlands: Court (Plenary) Judgment (Merits). 26.06.1986. App. No 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=00157590> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

5. Wendenburg and Others v. Germany: Court (Third Section) Decision. 06.02.2003. App. No. 71630/01 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23337> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

6. Malik v. The United Kingdom: Court (Fourth Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 13.03.2012. App. No. 23780/08 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001109541> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

7. Oklešen and Pokopališko Pogrebne Storitve Leopold Oklešen S.P. v. Slovenia: Court (Third Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 30.11.2010. App. No. 35264/04 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101988> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

8. Iatridis v. Greece: Court (Grand Chamber) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 25.03.1999. App. No 31107/96 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58227> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

9. Niemietz v. Germany: Court (Chamber) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 16.12.1992. App. No. 13710/88 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57887> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

10. Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden: Court (Chamber) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 07.07.1989. App. No 10873/84 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng?i=001-57586> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

11. Smith and Grady v. The United Kingdom (Article 41): Court (Third Section) Judgment (Just Satisfaction). 25.07.2000. App. No 33985/96, 33986/96 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng?i=001-59023> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

12. Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova: Court (Fourth Section) Judgment (Just Satisfaction). 24.02.2009. App. No 3052/04 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-91479> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

13. Basarba OOD v. Bulgaria: Court (Fifth Section) Judgment (Just Satisfaction). 20.01.2011. App. No 77660/01 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-102898> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

14. Credit and Industrial Bank v. The Czech Republic: Court (Fourth Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). 21.10.2003. App. No 29010/95 <http://hudoc.echr.coe. int/eng?i=001-61381> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

15. Karni v. Sweden: Commission Decision. 08.03.1988. App. No. 11540/85 <http://hudoc. echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-202> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

16. Döring v. Germany: Court (Fourth Section) Decision. 09.11.1999. App. No. 37595/97 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-5642> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

17. Buzescu v. Romania: Court (Second Section) Judgment. 24.05.2005. App. No. 61302/00 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69120> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

18. Lederer v. Germany: Court (Fifth Section) Decision. 22.05.2006. App. No. 6213/03 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83568> accessed 1 April 2018 (in English).

19. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu [Supreme Court Ruling] vid 2 bereznia 2018 r. u spravi № 814/1743/17. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/72551817 (accessed: 01.04.2018) (in Ukrainian).

Bibliography

Authored books

20. Hus A, Nematerialni aktyvy: hospodarsko-pravovyi aspekt: monohrafiia [Intangible Assets: Economic Law Aspect: Monograph] (AUTDOR-ShARK 2015) (in Ukrainian).

21. Stefanchuk R, Zakhyst chesti, hidnosti ta reputatsii v tsyvilnomu pravi: monohrafiia [Protection of Honor, Dignity and Reputation in Civil Law: Monograph] (Naukovyi svit 2001) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

22. Chernovol K, ‘Gudvill, klientura i delovaya reputatsiya v praktike tolkovaniya Evropeyskim Sudom po pravam cheloveka stat’i 1 Protokola №1 k Konventsii o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod’ [‘Goodwill, Clientele and Business Reputation in the European Court of Human Rights Practice of Interpretation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’] (2017) 8-9 Gumanitarnye, sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki 259 (in Russian).

23. Haliantych M ta Kovalenko H, ‘Chest, hidnist i dilova reputatsiia. Tsyvilno-pravovi problemy zakhystu nemainovykh prav’ [‘Honor, Dignity and Business Reputation. Civil Law Issues of Non-Property Rights Protection’] [2000] 20(442) Zakon i biznes 10 (in Ukrainian).

24. Khodyko Yu, ‘Pidpryiemstvo yak yedynyi mainovyi kompleks ta osoblyvosti yoho ipoteky’ [‘Enterprise as a Whole Property Complex and the Specifics of its Mortgage’] [2010] 1(33) Universytetski naukovi zapysky 61 (in Ukrainian).

25. Naumenko A, ‘Pravovi aspekty vyznachennia ta klasyfikatsii nematerialnykh aktyviv yak obiektiv otsinky’ [‘Legal Aspects of Definition and Classification of Intangible Assets as Valuation Objects’] (2013) 3 Aktualni pytannia publichnoho ta pryvatnoho prava 52 (in Ukrainian).

26. Nor Zh, ‘Pravo na dilovu reputatsiiu OVS yak osobyste nemainove pravo’ [‘Right to Business Reputation of Internal Affairs Bodies as a Personal Non-Property Right’] [2010] 2(49) Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav <http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/soc_gum/vkhnuvs/2010_49/49/34.pdf> accessed 1 April 2018 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

27. Kuznietsova N, ‘Vlasnist i pravo na myrne volodinnia mainom vidpovidno do statti 1 Pershoho protokolu do Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod (poniattia obiektiv prava vlasnosti ta netypovi obiekty prava vlasnosti u rozuminni statti 1 Pershoho protokolu)’ [‘Property and the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Concept of Property Right Objects and Atypical Property Right Objects within the Meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol)’] v Pravo vlasnosti: yevropeiskyi dosvid ta ukrainski realii: Zbirnyk dopovidei i materialiv Mizhnarodnoi konferentsii (m Kyiv, 22–23 zhovtnia 2015 roku) Ownership Right: the European Experience and Ukrainian Realities: Collected Reports and Materials of the International Conference (Kyiv, October 22-23, 2015)] (VAITE 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Thesis abstracts

28. Koval I, ‘Pravo na dilovu reputatsiiu subiektiv hospodariuvannia i yoho pozasudovyi zakhyst vid nepravomirnoho vykorystannia’ [‘Right to Business Reputation of Business Entities and Its Out-of-Court Protection against Illegal Use’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, Instytut ekonomiko-pravovykh doslidzhen NAN Ukrainy 2005) (in Ukrainian).

29. Simson O, ‘Pravova model derzhavno-pryvatnoho partnerstva yak instrument harmonizatsii publichnykh i pryvatnykh interesiv v innovatsiinii stratehii Ukrainy’ [‘Legal Model of Public-Private Partnership as a Tool for Harmonization of Public and Private Interests in the Innovation Strategy of Ukraine’] (avtoref dys d-ra yuryd nauk, Natsionalnyi yurydychnyi universytet imeni Yaroslava Mudroho 2015) (in Ukrainian).