Nationalisation of the «Privatbank»: a look through the convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms

• Main Author: Семен Сергійович Яценко
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University 2019-06-01
• Series: Проблеми Законності
• Subjects: nationalization; human rights; Convention; Privatbank; the right to peaceful possession of their property
• Online Access: http://plaw.nlu.edu.ua/article/view/161676
• ISSN: 2224-9281; 2414-990X

The introduction of the temporary administration gives the Deposit Guarantee Fund not only the full and exclusive right to manage a banking institution, but also the right to dispose of them. Due to this, the Fund sold, and the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine acquired one hundred percent of the shares of «Privatbank». The conclusion of this agreement was preceded by recognition of the bank as insolvent, consideration of the issue of threats to national security at a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, and a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine about accepting the National Bank’s proposal to buy out a banking institution. Given this, it is worth noting that the nationalization of «Privatbank» began with the introduction of a temporary administration, and it ended with the state registration of ownership rights to the company's shares. Nationalization is a violation of the right to peaceful possession of property and the right to respect for private and family life because the right to engage in commercial activity is in the private sphere, business premises are, according to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in the category «home» And the shares of the company belong to the category of«property», taking into account Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. These rights are not absolute, thus there is the question of determining the legitimacy and proportionality of governmental intervention in their implementation. Affiliation of «Privatbank» to systemically important may indirectly indicate the presence of public interest in interfering with the rights of bank owners for prevention a financial crisis. Also, the consideration of this issue at a meeting of the Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine is intended to aggravate the significance of the problem. The public cannot provide these events with a proper assessment due to the secrecy of all relevant information: the National Bank of Ukraine and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine refused to provide any information.