In cases where the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes a violation of the right to property enshrined in article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention), impressive amounts of just satisfaction are awarded. In this context, rescission of final court judgements is the form of this right violation which is most often established by the ECHR in cases against Ukraine.

The article examines the historical and theoretical background of the onset and development of the ECHR’s case law involving rescission of a final court judgement as a violation of the right to property, cases of such violations against Ukraine, as well as the possibility of establishing new violations coming under this category within the court system in its currently existing state. The author arrives at the conclusion that the Ukrainian court system still comprises the procedures that can lead to rescission of final court judgements and, accordingly, to violation of the right to property. These procedures are reopening of the term for filing an appeal or a cassation appeal against judgements and case review upon discovery of new facts. Both procedures are not an automatic violation of the principle of legal certainty. Nevertheless, if they are abused, in particular, if the term for an appellate review is reopened without proper grounds, or if an application for a case review upon discovery of new facts is satisfied, actually being “a hidden appeal”, or if a case is tried after reopening and goes beyond the new discovered facts, this can entail a violation of the right to property.

The author also emphasizes that national courts should be particularly cautious when granting applications for reopening of the period for appeal/cassation appeal and when considering applications for case reopening upon discovery of new facts and after such reopening, to make sure that decisions passed by them do not entail significant expenditure of the State’s budget following the ECHR judgements recognizing a violation of article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention by rescission of final court judgements in favor of applicants.