Compulsory Seizure of a Vehicle: Jurisdictional Issue

Abstract

The article examines the specifics of the compulsory seizure of property, namely vehicles. The relevance of the study is driven by the need to define clear procedural boundaries for restricting citizens’ rights under martial law in Ukraine, as well as to ensure a well-balanced correlation between public and private interests on these issues. The purpose of the work is to analyze questions of jurisdiction over disputes concerning the compulsory seizure of vehicles. The research employs various scientific methods, including induction and deduction, the systemic method, the comparative-legal method, and the case study method. These relations are analyzed in light of the current complex conditions of martial law. In such circumstances, the compulsory seizure of property requires a well-ordered procedure for the actions of public authorities and their coordination with the powers of local self-government bodies.

The regime of compulsory seizure under these conditions embodies several fundamental features. First, the coordination of powers between local self-government bodies and military units that directly carry out such a seizure. Second, the clear documentary formalization of all elements that must be recorded in the relevant act. Third, the consideration of territorial factors (whether the area is an active combat zone or not) where the seizure takes place. Fourth, the proper determination of the circle of subjects, particularly in cases where the owner of the vehicle delegates representative functions concerning the purchase and delivery of the vehicle to a freight forwarder who performs corresponding agency functions. The subject of such a dispute involves challenging acts related to the compulsory alienation of the plaintiffs’ immovable property. The dispute between the parties concerns the property rights of the plaintiffs, despite arising within the sphere of public interest. Moreover, declaring unlawful the decisions, actions, or omissions of a state authority, an authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, or a local self-government body, as well as their officials, may serve as a means of protecting civil rights and interests and may be adjudicated within the framework of civil proceedings.