Proportionality of Interference with the Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Property During the Seizure of Property in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine

This article considers relevant science and law enforcement practice issues of stateintervention’s legitimacy in the right to peaceful property enjoyment in criminal proceedingsduring property seizure. These issues are considered everywhere through internationalinstruments’ prism, particularly the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights(ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention andthe ECtHR case-law. Based on the ECtHR case law, the authors analyze the conditionsunder which the state may interfere in exercising a protected right, often called criteriafor intervention. Based on the fact restrictions are permissible if they are prescribed bylaw, necessary in a democratic society and pursue a legitimate goal, the authors considerthese conditions through the lens of national law enforcement practices of Ukrainiancriminal proceedings. The authors emphasize the relevance of these criteria of the legalityof individual rights restriction in criminal proceedings since when applying for propertyseizure, the Ukrainian legislator requires investigating judges to consider reasonablenessand restriction proportionality of property rights, and apply the least onerous seizuremethod, not suspend or excessively restrict a person’s lawful business activities, or otherconsequences significantly affecting others’ interests. Due to the amendment of theUkrainian criminal procedure legislation, the practice is slowly approaching the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights practice’s European standards. However, proper systematic, logicaland consistent court decisions limiting the human right to peaceful property possessionremain critical. Based on the study, the authors offer a model of logical reasoning,following which the investigating judges can correctly formulate the motivational part ofthe decision to satisfy or deny the request for property seizure. Particular attention is paidto the reasonableness, suitability, necessity, and proportionality of the means of restrictingthe right to peaceful enjoyment of the property and describes each of them.