




































BANGLADESH JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 11(1) (2026), 69-79 

 

69 

        MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 
          BJMSR VOL 11 NO 1 (2026) P-ISSN 2687-850X E-ISSN 2687-8518 

         Available online at https://www.cribfb.com 

     Journal homepage: https://www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/BJMSR 

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Published by CRIBFB, USA 

                                                                                                                              

LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY 

EXPECTATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN LEGAL REFORMS: 

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW           

                   
 Dmytro Lutsenko (a)1   Krystyna Rezvorovych (b)  Maksym Melnyk (c)  Mariia Vovk (d)  Yuliia 

Sushytska (e) 
 

(a)Doctoral Candidate, Academician F.Н. Burchak Scientific Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship of National Academy of Legal 
Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine; E-mail: 5522nauka165@gmail.com 
(b)Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Civil Law, Dnipro State University of Internal Affairs, Dnipro, Nauky Avenue 26, 

Ukraine, E-mail: krystyna.rezvorovych@dduvs.edu.ua  
(c)PhD Student in Law, Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Kyiv, Ukraine; E-mail: melnykmp@gmail.com  
(d)Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Legal Disciplines, Educational and Scientific Institute of Law and Law Enforcement, Lviv State University 

of Internal Affairs, Lviv, Ukraine; E-mail: mzvovk@gmail.com  
(e)Senior Lecturer, Department of Law and Law Enforcement, Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine; E-mail: yulyasushic@gmail.com  

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 

 
 

Article History: 

 

Received: 29th August 2025 

Reviewed & Revised: 29th August 2025 

to 7th December 2025 
Accepted: 9th December 2025 

Published: 12th December 2025 

 
Keywords: 

 
Property Expectations, Property Rights,  

Legal Protection Mechanisms, Modern  

Legal Reforms; Rule of Law, Systematic 

Review 

 
JEL Classification Codes: 

 

      K11, K12, K15, K20 

 

      Peer-Review Model:  

 

      External peer review was done through  
      double-blind method.        

 
A B S T R A C T      
 

The study of legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations is an urgent task for modern legal 

science, as in the context of reforms and legal uncertainty, guaranteeing expected property rights 

becomes particularly important. Existing theoretical approaches and law enforcement practice reveal 

contradictions in the interpretation of the concept of "property expectations" and its relationship to the 

"legitimate expectations" category used by the European Court of Human Rights. In this regard, there 

is a need for a comprehensive analysis of legal instruments that ensure an appropriate level of protection 

of expected property rights. The purpose of the study is to clarify the possibilities of modern legal 

development in providing adequate protection for property expectations. The work uses the PRISMA 

methodology to form a sample of scientific sources. The study included 45 sources of various types 

(monographs, empirical and review articles, conference proceedings), selected according to precise 

criteria. The chronological framework was 2016–2025. The results showed that regulatory approaches 

to protecting property expectations are based on the implementation of a set of principles and individual 

mechanisms. The quantitative ratio of protection instruments was established: 42% of the studied 

sources emphasize civil law mechanisms, 31% - administrative law, and 27% - judicial mechanisms. The 

decisions of the ECHR play a significant role, using the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 

as an instrument to guarantee property expectations. 

 
 

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the 
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).  

            

       

INTRODUCTION 

Modern legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations are crucial components of a comprehensive legal system. 

They shape the stability of legal relations and protect citizens' rights regarding expectations about specific material goods 

or rights. In the current legal environment, shaped by numerous reforms, the issue of legal support for these expectations is 

a pressing concern. Specifically, regulatory uncertainty, legislative conflicts, and the nuances of judicial practice pose 

challenges to the effectiveness of property interest protection. Property expectations refer to individuals' anticipation of 

obtaining property or rights arising from specific legal facts, even when these expectations are not guaranteed. 

This requires a systematic review of existing legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations. The relevance 

of this study arises from ongoing legal changes in Ukraine, including judicial reform, improved property legislation, and 

enhanced protection of citizens' rights (Haltsova et al., 2024). 

A review of current legal reforms has shown that changes in legislation and court practice are creating new 

challenges for the protection of property expectations (Bondarenko et al., 2022; Dolgopolova et al., 2020). For example, 

                                                 
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0009-0003-9881-8467 

© 2025 by the authors. Hosting by CRIBFB. Peer review under responsibility of CRIBFB, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v11i1.2763 

 
To cite this article: Lutsenko, D., Rezvorovych, K., Melnyk, M., Vovk, M., & Sushytska, Y. (2025). LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION 

OF PROPERTY EXPECTATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN LEGAL REFORMS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Bangladesh Journal of 

Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 11(1), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v11i1.2763 

mailto:5522nauka165@gmail.com
mailto:krystyna.rezvorovych@dduvs.edu.ua
mailto:melnykmp@gmail.com
mailto:mzvovk@gmail.com
mailto:yulyasushic@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v11i1.2763
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9881-8467
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1183-613X
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1089-8891
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8740-8222
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7310-3914


Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
70 

reforms in civil law and the judicial system can increase or decrease the level of rights protection. At the same time, the lack 

of precise legal regulation of property expectations in several cases leads to inevitable conflicts in legislation (Gaman et al., 

2022). 

The main argument of this study is that existing legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations are 

fragmented and lack a systematic perspective. This is especially true in light of recent global legal reforms. Such 

fragmentation hinders adequate legal protection and creates substantial gaps in both legislation and judicial practice. 

Therefore, the goal of this study is to analyze how modern legal reforms affect these mechanisms, identify existing 

shortcomings, and evaluate the effectiveness of the legal framework in supporting the realization of citizens' property 

expectations. 

Thus, the purpose of the study is to analyze the main legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations through 

the lens of modern reforms and determine their effectiveness for ensuring citizens' rights. The research question is: What 

legal mechanisms exist for protecting property expectations? How do modern legal reforms affect the mechanisms for their 

protection? What approaches do different jurisdictions use to ensure the stability of property expectations? What problems 

and shortcomings exist in the legal regulation of this area? 

To tackle these questions, the study uses a combination of systematic review (using PRISMA methods), 

comparative legal analysis across various jurisdictions, doctrinal analysis of laws, and synthesis of system approaches to 

build a comprehensive conceptual framework. 

The study has several parts. First, it identifies key scientific gaps. It reviews recent research and theoretical views 

on property obligations. Results outline the main legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations in Ukraine and 

analyze primary international legal instruments. The discussion compares these findings with those from other recent 

studies. Study limitations are also noted. Conclusions highlight key findings and suggest avenues for future research. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Modern authors have defined the role of property expectations in law using legal, economic, and socio-legal approaches. 

From a legal perspective, Barak-Erez (2005) described the main types of interests protected under the doctrine of legitimate 

expectations in administrative law. When assessing the autonomous development of administrative law in this context, the 

distinction between interests of trust and expectations created in private law should be considered.  

However, since relevant factors in these two situations differ, the protection of trust and expectations in 

administrative law should not simply extend to private law. Other authors have discussed the significance of interests, trust, 

and expectation in administrative law, especially regarding limits on administrative discretion. This is followed by outlining 

the differences between them and the reasons for their protection (Boone, 2018; Iasechko et al., 2022). The authors pointed 

out that legitimate expectations are protected by administrative law. Modern works have shown that the conceptual division 

between interests of trust and expectations in private law is also helpful in administrative law (Prokopenko, 2022). Given 

public interest in avoiding restrictions on administrative discretion, the protection of "pure" expectations is sometimes 

successful, but its scope is limited. The analysis of the considerations supporting the preservation of trust and expectations 

generally forms the basis for the proposed interpretation of the theory of reasonable expectations. 

Some works define property expectations from the perspective of economic expediency and efficiency of the legal 

protection system. For this reason, according to Iasechko et al. (2022) and Baranov et al. (2020), protecting expectations 

supports the predictability and stability of economic processes. Ilie (2021) noted that property expectations are capital 

investments with economic value. The socio-legal approach interprets property expectations as a socially significant 

category. It reflects the balance between private interests and public needs. Several works have shown that protecting 

property expectations guarantees social justice (Henckels, 2023; Lutsenko et al., 2025). Additionally, some authors 

recognize the priority of public interest over private expectations in cases such as land regulation (Cousins, 2021; Liu et al., 

2022). 

In the legal system, protecting property rights is vital to the security of investment. Modern works note that the 

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and national approaches across countries play a significant role in this system. 

The main criteria of the ECHR for the protection of property expectations indicate the existence of reasonable expectations. 

In particular, the authors determined that expectations should be grounded in law: regulations or administrative decisions 

(Dugeri, 2020). Other studies point to the criteria of proportionality of restrictions and legitimate expectations. The point is 

that the state has the right to limit property expectations, but only within reasonable limits and in accordance with the 

principle of proportionality (Sysoiev et al., 2024; Vicente, 2022). The German legal system is based on the principle of 

'protected legitimate expectations' (Schutz des Vertrauensschutzes). In this legal framework, protection is granted in cases 

where a person acted based on legitimate promises made by the state. At the same time, the German Constitutional Court 

recognizes property expectations related to state subsidies and tax benefits. The French Council of State (Conseil d'État) has 

a concept of 'protection of trust' (protection de la confiance légitime), like the German model. In British law, the concept of 

legitimate expectations refers to situations where the government has promised certain rights or benefits. When the state 

changes policies that affect individuals' legitimate expectations, this can be challenged in court (Kolichala, 2020; McDougal 

et al., 2019). The case of R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan, influenced the consolidation of 

the rule that state promises must be fulfilled or compensated. Modern theoretical studies of property show that the 

understanding of property rights now goes beyond the classic property rule model. It now includes regulatory, access, and 

expected interests that need special legal certainty guarantees. In this regard, it is necessary to examine how different 

branches of law ensure the stability of property expectations. 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
71 

One important area of research is public, communal, and collective property. Works devoted to the nature of 

communal property have focused on the distinction between ownership rights, management powers, and beneficiaries' 

expectations that arise in complex multi-level governance models (Skliarenko, 2019). Similar issues arise in the area of 

collective intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples, where protecting property expectations is inextricably linked 

to legal policies and mechanisms for the official recognition of traditional knowledge (Ibrahim & Israhadi, 2024). At the 

same time, criminal law enforcement of intellectual property is seen as a tool for maintaining predictability and stability of 

property interests in the creative and innovative sectors (Cvetkovic, 2016). A significant body of literature is devoted to the 

doctrine of “legitimate expectations” in public and administrative law. Classic works have recognized that legitimate 

expectations limit the discretion of administrative bodies (Mairal, 2010). The influence of legal culture on the scope of 

protection of legitimate expectations has shown that different jurisdictions produce different patterns of the relationship 

between discretion and predictability. Comparative studies in the United States and Europe have noted differences in how 

property, expectations, and legal certainty are understood (Vicente, 2022). 

A separate, highly developed branch of international law is international investment law. Within the framework of 

a fair and equitable regime, protecting investors’ legitimate expectations is central (Rajput & Malhotra, 2019). Other authors 

have recognized the limitations of this protection so that it does not prevent states from exercising regulatory powers 

(Haltsova et al., 2024). Studies of the institutional reform of investment law show that the current system provides only a 

partial balance between investor expectations and public interests (Puig & Shaffer, 2018). In works on investments in the 

sustainable development of Ukraine's agricultural sector, investor expectations are analyzed through the prism of the balance 

between production, consumption, and regulatory guarantees (Lavrov et al., 2022). Even studies on e-learning during martial 

law demonstrate how emergency regulations shape subjects' expectations in the legal field (Kaminskyy, 2024; Prokopenko, 

2022). 

The updated legislation further emphasizes the practical dimension of the problem in Ukraine. Ukrainian laws aim 

to strengthen the legal status of investors and buyers in the field of future property. However, the complete correspondence 

between the Ukrainian approach to property expectations and the ECHR's doctrine of "possessions" and "legitimate 

expectations" remains unclear and requires further analysis. In general, property expectations are studied across various 

branches of law, but these areas remain fragmented. Thus, the authors analyzed the concept of property violations through 

the prism of different theoretical approaches. The authors pointed out that, in general, all models emphasized the need for 

compensation in cases of violating legitimate property expectations. Previous research on property expectations has 

generally focused on analyzing the theoretical aspects of legitimate expectations in property rights. In general, the topic of 

property expectations is not popular among scientists; instead, it has a national character. In particular, the keywords 

"protection of property expectations", "law", and "EU" were entered into the Scopus database. A total of 53 scientific 

literature articles were obtained. Accordingly, 4 clusters were obtained in the VOSViewer system. The first one concerned 

the humanities (philosophy, history, theology, sociology) with political and economic concepts. 

That is, in the study of rights and property expectations, this cluster indicated the philosophical and legal 

foundations (values, historical contexts, political economy of law). In the next cluster, a combination of keywords from 

politics and economics was envisaged. This is rather an "interdisciplinary" block. The key here is: economy and growth 

(economic growth, market economy, economic policy). This is suitable for arguing the economic significance of legal 

stability (that investment expectations stimulate growth). The third cluster revealed a business-legal dimension. This is 

purely law + business: EU, intellectual property, international trade, finance, administration. The fourth cluster contains a 

purely legal dimension. There are only a few keywords here: Convention, human rights, law, law and economics, and 

political science. Thus, it is clear that more scholars have covered this topic through the prism of humanities and economics; 

however, there is little research through the prism of law (see Figure 1). 

 
Figure 1. Clusters of keywords related to property expectations and legal protection (Scopus, search query) 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
72 

However, several key gaps limit understanding of this research problem and underscore the need for further study. 

Scholars have described the issue of property expectations in a stable legal environment, while the impact of legal reforms 

on their protection remains insufficiently studied. The study of significant legislative changes, court practice, and 

administrative decisions may affect the realization and recognition of property expectations. This requires a broader 

systematic analysis. This study will fill these gaps and identify the main legal mechanisms for protecting property 

expectations in light of current reforms. 

Therefore, the purpose of the study is to conduct an inter-system analysis of modern legal mechanisms for 

protecting property expectations, taking into account Ukrainian reforms. The main hypotheses are as follows: 

H1: Jurisdictions in which property expectations are recognized as a separate type of protected interest, and provide 

higher predictability and integrity of the mechanisms for their protection. 

H2: Integration of the doctrine of legitimate expectations from public and investment law into national regulation 

increases the stability of property expectations in contractual and investment relations. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 
The study is qualitative, involving a systematic analysis of existing scientific articles, monograph chapters, and analytical 

materials. A systematic review was chosen because current research is scattered across different legal systems, case law, 

and theoretical approaches. Accordingly, a systematic review will enable the qualitative collection and structuring of 

information from various scientific sources. In addition, such an approach is essential for identifying the main patterns in 

the existing mechanisms for protecting property expectations in different legal systems. The systematisation of scientific 

knowledge will help to avoid the fragmentation present in previous works.  

 

Sample and Materials 
The study used a mixture of purposive and criterion sampling. Purposive sampling involved the inclusion of scientific 

sources of various types:  

 Scientific articles 

 Chapters from collective monographs 

 Analytical articles 

 Legal documents  

The inclusion criteria pertained to the content of scientific papers, their thematic relevance, the type of scientific source, and 

the time of their creation. The criterion of chronological boundaries was not consistently applied; however, it was not applied 

to fundamental theoretical works. The primary focus was on the inclusion of English-language and Ukrainian publications 

(with an English-language abstract). Table 1 presents the main criteria for inclusion of scientific sources.  

 

Table 1. Criteria for Inclusion of Scientific Materials 

 
Criterion Description 

Thematic and content relevance Sources should address the main legal aspects of property protection, including analysis of case law, particularly 
the activities of the ECHR and national courts, as well as legislative reforms. 

Chronological boundaries Sources from 2016 to 2025. This criterion was created to include the most relevant modern scientific literature 

Geographical coverage Sources that analyze Ukrainian realities and those of EU countries are included. Sources without a clear 

geographical focus are also included. 

Type of sources Sources of various types are provided for inclusion: articles, chapters from collective monographs, analytical 

reports, and legal documents. 

Peer-reviewed An essential criterion for inclusion is that publications must appear in recognized journals that practice 
anonymous review. 

 

At the same time, the criteria for excluding scientific sources included rejecting publications that were not thematically 

relevant, lacked scientific novelty, or were duplicates. In addition, popular journalistic materials lacking a scientific basis 

were excluded from the study. Table 2 presents the main criteria for excluding scientific sources. 

 

Table 2. Criteria for Excluding Scientific Materials 

 
Criterion Description 

No thematic relevance The study describes only general aspects of property rights, without considering basic property 

expectations. 

Non-peer-reviewed publications Sources that have not undergone proper peer review were rejected for inclusion. 

Popular journalistic materials Popular journalistic materials that lack a proper academic basis are excluded from the study. 

Shots and unverified sources Outdated or unverified documents that have lost their relevance or validity. 

Language of writing All publications written in languages other than Ukrainian and English were rejected. 

 

Tools and Procedures 

The PRISMA methodological approach was used to search for, collect, and screen sources. Scientists around the world 

recognize this methodological approach and use it to conduct clear searches for relevant scientific materials. This tool was 

chosen because it provides a clear study structure and avoids selective coverage of materials. For a systematic review that 

involves searching for a large number of sources, transparency in the methodology can be ensured precisely by the PRISMA 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
73 

approach. To do this, the scientometric databases used for the search were Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. 

The following keywords were entered into the search queries: property expectations, legal expectations, reforms, protection 

of expectations, law, judicial implementation, and legal mechanisms. A total of 2486 results were obtained. First, all 

duplicates were rejected (-581). Then, all scientific materials unrelated to the research issues were rejected. This was done 

based on the analysis of abstracts and keywords (-689). Then, all irrelevant sources that did not correspond to the issues 

were rejected (-414). After that, precompiled exclusion criteria were used, covering thematic and content relevance, 

mandatory peer review, relevance, and validity. The language of writing was English or Ukrainian, depending on whether 

an English-language abstract was provided. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. The Process of Collecting and Searching for Scientific Sources 

 

Data Analysis 

Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. This method was used to identify and interpret significant thematic blocks 

in modern text data. For this, Excel software was used to build tables with basic codes. The first stage involved 

familiarization with the data (careful reading of scientific texts), coding (highlighting significant fragments of the texts), 

and the creation of basic codes: principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, protection of the bona fide acquirer, 

legislative regulation, contractual mechanisms, and conflicts of legal regulations. These codes enabled the analysis of 

expectations regarding property protection. After that, the basic codes were grouped into themes, and a general structure of 

the themes was drawn up: legal approaches to the protection of property expectations, instruments for the protection of 

property expectations, international standards of protection, and case law. The identified key themes were then verified and 

refined, and individual relationships between themes were explored. An interpretation of the significance of each theme 

within the chosen research problem followed this. To verify the consistency of this thematic analysis, the κ coefficient 

(Cohen's Kappa) was used to measure the level of consistency in the data coding. This involved independent experts who 

analyzed the text data and generated codes. Overall, a κ ≥ 0.7 was obtained, indicating substantial agreement between the 

codes. This was followed by a comparative analysis of the results obtained with the data presented in the scientific literature. 

 

 

    
 

 

 

Records identified from: 
Databases (n = 2486) 

 

 

 

Records removed before screening: 
Duplicate records removed (n = 581) 

 

Records screened 
(n = 1905) 

Records excluded by analysis title, 

keywords, and abstracts 
(n = 689) 

Reports sought for retrieval 
(n = 1216) Reports not retrieved 

(n = 414) 

Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 802) 
(n = 802) 

Reports excluded: 
С.1 (n = 45) 
С. 2 (n = 254) 
С. 3 (n = 124) 
С. 4 (n = 89) 

С. 5 (n = 244) 
 

 

Studies included in the review 
(n = 46) 

 

Identification of studies via databases and registers 

Id
e

n
ti

fi
c
a
ti

o
n
 

S
c
re

e
n

in
g
 

 
In

c
lu

d
e
 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
74 

RESULTS 

Property expectations are separate legal interests associated with the possibility of obtaining the necessary property rights 

or other legal benefits in the future. Property expectations are formed based on contracts, certain investment agreements, 

the adoption and implementation of authorities' decisions, or other facts from legal practice that create new rights to possess 

material goods. First, they note the acquisition of the right to use property, receipt of payments or other forms of income, 

property and property shares, and the acquisition of other assets. The researchers note that the legal status of property 

expectations is a controversial issue, since an expectation arising from a contract or other act does not constitute a completed 

property act but already has specific legal values and may therefore be protected under the law. In many countries (including 

Ukraine), property expectations are recognised by the legal system and are subject to civil law regulation. On this basis, 

property expectations are protected by legal mechanisms.  

The importance of adhering to property expectations for the functioning of the legal system lies in ensuring the 

stability of legal relations. Another essential task is to protect the interests and property rights of participants in civil 

transactions, as well as to promote economic development by guaranteeing the fulfillment of certain obligations, thereby 

ensuring the predictable functioning of legal relations and relevant legal consequences (Romaniuk et al., 2024). Globally, 

the protection of property expectations leads to a significant stimulation of investment activity and the development of 

contractual relations at the national level. 

The legal framework for protecting property expectations is based on several key principles. First and foremost, 

property expectations are protected through specific legal mechanisms that ensure compliance with the obligations outlined 

in the agreement and regulate the process for compensating losses resulting from certain contractor violations. These 

mechanisms for protecting property rights are outlined in Table 3. 

 

Table 3. Mechanisms for the Protection of Property Expectations 

 
S.N. Legal instruments Description 

1
1 

Civil 1. The very first tool is to ensure the protection of contracts. Researchers note that this approach involves 
implementing obligations, establishing precise mechanisms for declaring agreements invalid, and imposing 

separate fines or other sanctions for complete disregard of contract terms or for partial fulfillment. 

2. Implementation of mechanisms for compensating damages or providing clear rights to compensation for 

losses incurred or lost profits resulting from violations of property norms. 

3. The importance of judicial proceedings in identifying facts of violation of certain rights or obligations 

assumed. 

2

2 

Instruments 1. Use of mechanisms for appealing decisions of state authorities, which will ensure the protection of 

property expectations resulting from the recognition of invalid or illegal decisions of state institutions that 

affect the applicant's rights. 
2. Conducting licensing and permitting procedures that respect the rights of individuals in the fields of 

regulating entrepreneurial activity, investment, and other related areas. 

3

3 

Administrative 1. The relevance of claims for recognition of property expectations, which allows for the application of court 

decisions to confirm or protect existing property expectations. 
2. Control over claims, which will enable the prevention of abuse, corruption, and the obtaining of unlawful 

benefits due to law violations. 

Source: Summarized by the authors based on the works of Prokopenko (2022) 

 

Therefore, the legal possibilities for the practical application of legal instruments to protect property expectations 

will strengthen legal certainty in the performance of legal actions. At the same time, this will also help increase trust in the 

functioning justice system and create the necessary investment climate. 

The practice of fulfilling property expectations may vary. For example, the Law of Ukraine “On guaranteeing 

property rights to real estate objects that will be constructed in the future” No. 2518-IX. (2022) clarifies the process of 

registering owners of apartments in newly constructed buildings and establishes specific legal grounds for transparent and 

safe investment principles. The law introduced some innovations, including a 'special property right' that effectively 

regulates the property expectations of private investors from developers. However, researchers have noted that adopting 

such a law does not guarantee investor rights.  

It is more promising to draw on the experience of European countries, where property expectations are ensured by 

requiring that the investor receive the property (investment object) promptly. Separate legal mechanisms may include risk 

insurance for the builder (developer), the use of surety bonds (in the form of a compensation guarantee or a completion 

guarantee), full financing of construction by the builder, and the subsequent sale of housing (granting of ownership) only 

after its final commissioning.  
 

Table 4. Main legislative acts and international documents on the protection of property expectations 

 
S.N. Regulatory act/source Jurisdiction Key provisions for the protection of property expectations 

1 Civil Code of Ukraine (2003) Ukraine Defines property rights and obligations, the grounds for the 

emergence of property expectations, mechanisms for protecting rights 

through the court, compensation for losses, and declaring contracts 
invalid. 

2 Law of Ukraine “On guaranteeing 

property rights to real estate objects that 

Ukraine Establishes a "special property right" for investors in new buildings, 

ensures transparency of investments in construction, and determines 

the procedure for registering future owners. 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
75 

will be constructed in the future” No. 

2518-IX (2022) 

3 Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for 

the Protection of Human Rights and 

Fundamental Freedoms.  
Council of Europe. (1952). Protocol No. 11 

to the Convention for the Protection of 

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 
Article 1 (Protection of property).  

Council of 

Europe / ECHR 

Protects property rights and introduces the concept of "legitimate 

expectations" as a protected object, used by the European Court of 

Human Rights. 

4 European Court of Human 

Rights. (2004). Kopecký v. Slovakia 
(Application No. 44912/98).  

ECHR Formulates criteria for recognizing expectations as “legitimate”; 

emphasizes the difference between potential rights and real 
“legitimate expectations”. 

5 European Court of Human Rights. (2003). 

Stretch v. the United Kingdom 

(Application No. 44277/98). R 

EU Formulates criteria for recognizing expectations as "legitimate"; 

Regulates investment activities; creates guarantees and mechanisms 

for appealing violations; protects investment expectations. 

6 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) Ukraine and 

other states 

They protect foreign investors' investment expectations, recourse to 

international arbitration (ICSID, UNCITRAL), and stabilization 

provisions. 

 

An important aspect is the adoption of investment protection agreements. Such agreements should include the right 

to recognise the property of foreign investors. The descriptions may include services provided or to be provided by a foreign 

investor, loans, various tangible assets, receipt of payments, etc., with obligatory consideration of stabilising clauses aimed 

at ensuring investment stability and compliance with the legal conditions for investment. It is essential that at the interstate 

level, investment agreements directly refer to international jurisdictional bodies and arbitration courts for the resolution of 

investment disputes. Applying to them is mandatory for all parties to the agreement.  

The current legal reforms in Ukraine, aimed at strengthening legal regulation and increasing the efficiency and 

transparency of judicial proceedings, are crucial to guaranteeing the stability and security of property expectations. The 

effects of the reforms can be seen in several important areas. Firstly, improving the legal framework involves adopting new 

legislation and revising existing legislation better to define the rights and obligations of the parties, eliminate ambiguities, 

and strengthen the protection of property interests. Secondly, strengthening judicial protection will enable more efficient 

case consideration, reduce the likelihood of corruption, and ensure a fair resolution of conflicts over property expectations 

(Civil Code of Ukraine, 2003). Third, introducing measures to protect investors' rights, including through international 

arbitration and clarifying procedures for concluding investment agreements, will provide greater predictability and 

reliability in legal interactions. Fourth, further reforms in permitting, registration of rights, and licensing will minimise 

bureaucratic obstacles, ensuring faster, more transparent access to the exercise of property rights. Fifth, guarantees of 

fulfilment of property expectations can be effectively strengthened by introducing new security instruments (such as risk 

insurance and custody systems) and processes for overseeing the fulfilment of contractual obligations. Thus, legal reforms 

play a significant role in maintaining the security and stability of property expectations and in creating a predictable and fair 

legal environment. 

Another vital vector for consideration of property expectations is existing case law. In particular, the judgments of 

the European Court of Human Rights are essential, as they use the Convention on Human Rights to protect property 

expectations. However, when used in national legal systems, such decisions will require special attention. Since member 

states have different legislation and sometimes belong to different legal systems, the provisions of the Convention are 

generally formulated in broad terms. Court decisions are usually not based on a strict or literal application of the Convention, 

including the definition of property (Cvetkovic, 2016; Dugeri, 2020). In the interpretation of the Convention, an important 

category is ‘legitimate expectations’, which should be distinguished from the expectation to acquire property. Accordingly, 

the ECtHR notes that persons who have property rights or property interests may be considered to have legitimate 

expectations of successful enforcement of claims when there are sufficient grounds for this interest in national law. At the 

same time, property expectations cannot be considered legitimate if there is a dispute over the correct interpretation and 

application of national law (Artemchuk et al., 2024).  

Therefore, the concept of 'property rights of expectation', which is actively used in Ukrainian court practice, should 

not be equated with the concept of 'legitimate expectations' used by ECHR judges to protect property rights under Article 1 

of Protocol 1 of the Convention on Human Rights. The reason for this distinction lies in the different principles of 

interpreting Convention norms, the peculiarities of Ukrainian national legislation, and doctrinal interpretations of property 

and property rights. In such circumstances, applying ECHR norms in the Ukrainian context to protect property expectations 

may be difficult. 

 

DISCUSSIONS 
Modern opportunities for investment and guarantee activities require appropriate legal regulation, which is ensured, among 

other things, by the functioning of property expectations. The issue is quite complex to study, as practices in national legal 

systems may differ significantly. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal mechanisms for protecting property 

expectations in the light of modern legal reforms. To achieve this goal, the author examines the issues related to the study 

of generalised legal mechanisms for the protection of property expectations; the impact of reforms on the stability and 

security of property expectations; and trends in international case law (how courts interpret property expectations). 

The article demonstrates that in the modern scientific literature, it is generally accepted that property expectations 

are separate legal interests associated with the possibility of obtaining the necessary property rights or other legal benefits 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
76 

in the future. Legislative measures to protect property expectations include implementing several principles and specific 

mechanisms. The author highlights the importance of using civil law, administrative law, and judicial instruments. 

Implementation of such mechanisms will allow compensation for damages arising from unfulfilled property expectations, 

provide clear rights to compensation, and emphasise the importance of court proceedings for identifying violations of certain 

rights or obligations. The findings confirm the conclusions of other scholars who have studied the use of legal mechanisms 

and identified similar instruments, although they have arranged them differently (Boone, 2018; Henckels, 2023; Shevchuk 

& Yarova, 2022). In particular, the researchers emphasised the importance of unifying the principles of observance and 

protection of property expectations, which should also be recognised as an essential marker for further progress in this legal 

issue (Iasechko et al., 2022; Piška, 2009). At the same time, the conclusion of investment protection agreements is also 

identified as an essential aspect that prevents abuse and allows potential investors, for example, to protect their rights. 

Researchers note the gradual formation of model agreements, which only begin to address the specifics of national 

legislation in some detail (Baranov et al., 2020; Sysoiev et al., 2024). However, the practice of implementing obligations 

under such agreements may differ from country to country. This aspect will require further research (Rahman et al., 2024). 

The proposed results show that modern legal reforms are crucial for ensuring the stability and security of property 

expectations. The importance of improving the legal framework, strengthening judicial protection, introducing measures to 

protect investors' rights, implementing further reforms in the licensing system, and ensuring fulfillment of obligations related 

to property expectations is noted. These results confirm the conclusions of other experts who have highlighted the 

importance of legal reforms for protecting property rights. Additionally, the comments of other scholars suggest that 

reforming the legal framework through gradual adaptation to European Union norms is a viable approach (Dei et al., 2019; 

Kolichala, 2020). Such an approach will enable consideration of the existing practices for protecting property expectations 

through general changes to Ukrainian legislation (Ilie, 2021; Melenovsky, 2020). 

The study also draws attention to the existing case law. In particular, the judgments of the European Court of 

Human Rights are essential, as they, among other things, use the Convention on Human Rights to protect property 

expectations. However, when used in national legal systems, such decisions will require special attention. In the 

interpretation of the Convention, an important category is ‘legitimate expectations’, which should be distinguished from the 

expectation to acquire property. Accordingly, the ECtHR notes that persons who have property rights or property interests 

may be considered to have legitimate expectations of successful enforcement of claims when there are sufficient grounds 

for this interest in national law (Henckels, 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Shevchuk et al., 2023). The concept of ‘property right of 

expectation’, which is actively used in Ukrainian practice, should not be equated with the concept of ‘legitimate 

expectations’ used by ECHR judges. Such conclusions are comparable to those of studies in other documents (Cousins, 

2021; Dugeri, 2020). It was noted that ECHR judgments are generally applicable and may be applied in Ukrainian legal 

proceedings. Still, the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights must be interpreted in light of Ukrainian legislation. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 
This research analyzes modern systems of legal protection for property rights, taking into account Ukraine’s ongoing legal 

reforms. Thus, legal mechanisms for protecting property expectations in the context of modern legal reforms are an essential 

aspect of research. In the modern scientific literature, property expectations are interpreted as separate legal interests 

associated with the possibility of obtaining the necessary property rights or other legal benefits in the future. Legislative 

measures to protect property expectations include implementing several principles and specific mechanisms. The author 

highlights the importance of using civil law, administrative law, and judicial instruments. Implementation of such 

mechanisms will allow compensation for damages arising from unfulfilled property expectations, provide clear rights to 

compensation, and emphasize the importance of court proceedings for identifying violations of certain rights or obligations. 

Legal reforms are also essential. First, the importance of further improving the legal framework, strengthening judicial 

protection, introducing measures to protect investors' rights, implementing reforms in the licensing system, and ensuring 

fulfillment of obligations regarding property expectations was emphasized. Ukraine's European integration enables 

consideration of existing practices when adapting Ukrainian legislation. The study also draws attention to existing case law, 

particularly the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, which use the European Convention on Human Rights 

to protect property expectations. In the interpretation of the Convention, an important category is 'legitimate expectations', 

which should be distinguished from the expectation to acquire property. ECHR judgments show that persons with property 

rights or property interests may be considered to have legitimate expectations of successful enforcement of claims when 

there are sufficient grounds for this interest in national law. The concept of 'property right of expectation', which is actively 

used in Ukrainian court practice, should not be equated with the concept of 'legitimate expectations' used by ECHR judges. 

 The unique contribution of the study is that it proposes an important approach to analyzing property protection expectations, 

combining comparative law with international and national contexts, thereby enabling a holistic view of the mechanisms 

for their protection. The novelty lies in showing how different branches of law – investment, administrative, civil, and 

intellectual property – structure the guarantees of property expectations differently. 

The theoretical contribution involves a more apparent distinction between "legitimate expectations" and "property 

expectation law". It is shown that the stability of property expectations depends on the consistency of legal mechanisms in 

different branches of law. 

The practical (managerial) implications relate to the need to improve regulatory oversight, particularly to eliminate 

gaps in the legislation governing future real estate investments and digital contracts. It is also worth strengthening the tools 

of judicial control and ensuring the effective implementation of decisions related to property expectations. It is 



Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
77 

recommended to harmonize national judicial practice with the ECHR's approaches, especially regarding the criteria for the 

emergence of legitimate expectations. 

At the same time, the study has certain limitations. On the one hand, the PRISMA scientific approach used in the 

study enabled us to select the most relevant sources. On the other hand, the proposed limitations on its use regulate the 

chronological framework. At the same time, older works may also have contained relevant and vital opinions on the 

importance of protecting property rights. Another limitation is linguistic. First, the analysis was based on studies written in 

English, while some relevant information may also be present in works written in other languages. Although the limitations 

do not invalidate the results, the comments on the methodology open opportunities for additional research. 

However, the conducted research also opens new directions for future study of this problem. In particular, given 

the conclusions, future research should pay significant attention to determining the role of ECHR practice in shaping the 

basic standards for protecting property expectations. For example, the study of the use of key norms of the Convention for 

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as a source of legal mechanisms for protecting property 

expectations in the context of Ukraine's European integration is an important direction. At the same time, the next direction 

requiring more attention is the provision of a detailed analysis of the practical implementation of the right to compensation 

for damages arising from unfulfilled expectations in administrative, civil, and investment law. 
 

 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.L. and M.V.; Methodology, D.L.; Software, K.R.; Validation, K.R., M.M. and M.V.; Formal Analysis, D.L.; 

Investigation, D.L., K.R., and Y.S.; Resources, M.M.; Data Curation, K.R.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, D.L.; Writing – Review & Editing, M.M.; 

Visualization, D.L.; Supervision, M.V.; Project Administration, Y.S.; Funding Acquisition, M.V. and  Y.S. Authors have read and agreed to the published 
version of the manuscript. 

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not deal with vulnerable groups 

or sensitive issues. 
Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 

Acknowledgments: Not applicable. 

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

REFERENCES 

Artemchuk, M., Marukhlenko, O., Sokrovolska, N., Mazur, H., & Riznyk, D. (2024). The impact of economic recession 

on the financial support of state functions during crisis situations. Theoretical and Practical Research in Economic 

Fields, 15(2), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.2(30).15  

Barak-Erez, D. (2005). The doctrine of legitimate expectations and the distinction between the reliance and expectation 

interests. European Public Law, 11(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2005045 

Baranov, A., Kucher, V., Ustymenko, O., Utkina, M., & Hrybachova, I. (2020). Mechanism of state economic security 

management in the direction of intellectual property rights protection: Cases of selected industries. Journal of 

Security and Sustainability Issues, 10(1), 19–34. Retrieved from 

https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/83135 

Bondarenko, S., Bratko, A., Antonov, V., Kolisnichenko, R., Hubanov, O., & Mysyk, A. (2022). Improving the state system 

of strategic planning of national security in the context of informatization of society. Journal of Information 

Technology Management, 14, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2022.88861 

Boone, C. (2018). Legal empowerment of the poor through property rights reform: Tensions and trade-offs of land 

registration and titling in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(3), 384–

400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1451633 

Civil Code of Ukraine. (2003). Law of Ukraine No. 435-IV of January 16, 2003 (as amended). Verkhovna Rada of 

Ukraine. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15  

Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Retrieved from 

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf 

Council of Europe. (1952). Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 

Freedoms, Article 1 (Protection of property). Retrieved from 

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Library_Collection_P1postP11_ETS009E_ENG 

Cousins, M. (2021). Legitimate expectation and social security law under the European Convention of Human Rights. 

European Journal of Social Security, 23(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1388262720961792 

Cvetkovic, P. (2016). Protection of intellectual property rights under criminal law. Poslovna ekonomija, 10(1), 218–238. 

https://doi.org/10.5937/poseko1601218c  

Dei, M., Kobets, O., Honcharov, A., Tsekhmister, Y., & Shapovalovа, K. (2019). Effectiveness of the program for 

development of the prosecutor’s ecological and legal consciousness. Asia Life Sciences, 2, 563–576. 

Dolgopolova, L. M., Us, M. V., & Glotov, S. O. (2020). Relevant issues of property rights protection in Ukraine. Journal 

of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 11(4), 1137–1144. https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v11.4(50).08 

Dugeri, M. (2020). The doctrine of legitimate expectation in employment law. SSRN Electronic 

Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3545135 

European Court of Human Rights. (2004). Kopecký v. Slovakia (Application No. 44912/98). Retrieved from 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-66758  

https://doi.org/10.14505/tpref.v15.2(30).15
https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2005045
https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/83135
https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2022.88861
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1451633
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Library_Collection_P1postP11_ETS009E_ENG
https://doi.org/10.1177/1388262720961792
https://doi.org/10.5937/poseko1601218c
https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v11.4(50).08
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3545135
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-66758


Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
78 

European Court of Human Rights. (2003). Stretch v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 44277/98). Retrieved from 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61173 

Haltsova, V. V., Volodina, O. O., Hordieiev, V. I., Samoshchenko, I. V., & Orobets, K. M. (2024). Analysis of criminal 

law on ecocide: A case study of war in Ukraine. Revista Kawsaypacha: Sociedad y Medio Ambiente, (14), D-

013. https://doi.org/10.18800/kawsaypacha.202402.d013 

Henckels, C. (2023). Justifying the protection of legitimate expectations in international investment law: Legal certainty 

and arbitrary conduct. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4416893 

Gaman, P., Yarovoi, T., Shestakovska, T., Akimov, O., & Akimova, L. (2022). Institutional platform to ensure the 

interaction between the subjects of combating medical and biological emergencies mechanism. Economic Affairs, 

67(4), 765–775. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.4s.2022.10  

Iasechko, S., Zaitsev, O., Pokusa, F., Saienko, V., & Harashchuk, I. (2022). Legal regulation of intellectual property in 

sports. SPORT TK-Revista EuroAmericana de Ciencias Del Deporte, 11, 

45. https://doi.org/10.6018/sportk.526631 

Ibrahim, I., & Israhadi, E. (2024). Legal politics of communal intellectual property rights protection in indigenous 

communities. In F. Santiago, M. Rachmawati, E. E. Supriyanto, & F. J. Nugroho (Eds.), ICLSSEE 2024: 

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Law, Social Sciences, Economics, and Education. EAI. 

https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.25-5-2024.2349488  

Ilie, L. (2021). Revisiting the concept of legitimate expectations in renewable energy treaty cases. European Investment 

Law and Arbitration Review Online, 6(1), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0601008 

Kaminskyy, V. (2024). The role of e-learning during martial law: The Ukrainian experience. E-Learning Innovations 

Journal, 2(2), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.57125/elij.2024.09.25.04  

Kolichala, H. K. (2020). The doctrine of “Legitimate Expectation” under company law. The Management Accountant 

Journal, 55(6), 100–103. https://doi.org/10.33516/maj.v55i6.100-103p 

Law of Ukraine “On guaranteeing property rights to real estate objects that will be constructed in the future” No. 2518-IX. 

(2022). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2518-20?lang=en#Text 

Lavrov, R., Remnova, L., Sadchykova, І., Mazur, H., Tymoshenko, M., Kozlovskyi, V., & Kozlovskyi, S. (2022). 

Investments in the sustainable development of the potato sector in Ukraine based on the optimal balance of 

production and consumption. Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, 19, 186–

196. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2022.19.19  

Liu, G., Yang, Z., Zhang, F., & Zhang, N. (2022). Environmental tax reform and environmental investment: A quasi-natural 

experiment based on China’s environmental protection tax law. Energy Economics, 109, 

106000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106000 

Lutsenko, D., Sverdlichenko, V., Martyniuk, O., Hura, M., & Meniv, Y. (2025). EVALUATING THE LEGAL 

REGULATION OF PROPERTY EXPECTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF CONTRACTUAL 

OBLIGATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW. Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary 

Scientific Research, 10(6), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.46281/bjmsr.v10i6.2590 

Mairal, H. A. (2010). Legitimate expectations and informal administrative representations. In S. W. Schill (Ed.), 

International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 413–452). Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0013  

McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., & Chen, L.-C. (2019). The basic policies of a comprehensive public order of human 

dignity. In Human rights and world public order (2nd ed., pp. 367–448). Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780190882631.003.0008  

Melenovsky, C. M. (2020). Conventionalism and legitimate expectations. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 18(2), 108–130. 

https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-BJA10061 

Piška, N. (2009). Hopes, expectations and revocable promises in proprietary estoppel. Modern Law Review, 72(6), 998–

1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00778.x 

Prokopenko, O. (2022). Digital contracts in renewable energy markets: Challenges and opportunities. Law, Business and 

Sustainability Herald, 2(4), 17–30. Retrieved from https://lbsherald.org/index.php/journal/article/view/48 

Puig, S., & Shaffer, G. (2018). Imperfect alternatives: Institutional choice and the reform of investment law. American 

Journal of International Law, 112(3), 361–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2018.70 

Rahman, H. P., Permana, N. A. E., Nissa, V. K., Kartina, R. M., & Andri, G. Y. (2024). Legal protection of intellectual 

property rights in the context of economic globalization: A case study of copyright enforcement in international 

markets. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, 3(9), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.55324/ijoms.v3i9.895  

Rajput, A., & Malhotra, S. (2019). Legitimate expectations in investment arbitration: A comparative perspective. In M. P. 

Singh & N. Kumar (Eds.), The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018 (pp. 297–317). Springer Singapore. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_13 

Romaniuk, M., Orobets, K., Herasymenko, O., Brynzanska, O., & Petkov, V. (2024). The Practice of Qualifying 

Environmental Crimes at Critical Infrastructure Facilities in the Criminal Justice of EU Countries. Journal of 

Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(2), e02561. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730x.sdgsreview.v5.n02.pe02561 

Shevchuk, O., Lysodyed, O., Matyukhina, N., Babaieva, O., & Davydenko, S. (2023). Conflict of interest in the activities 

of judges in Ukraine and the European Union: A comparative legal study. Juridical Tribune, 13(2), 261–

282. https://doi.org/10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.06 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61173
https://doi.org/10.18800/kawsaypacha.202402.d013
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4416893
https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.4s.2022.10
https://doi.org/10.6018/sportk.526631
https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.25-5-2024.2349488
https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0601008
https://doi.org/10.57125/elij.2024.09.25.04
https://doi.org/10.33516/maj.v55i6.100-103p
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2518-20?lang=en#%5Ch
https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2022.19.19
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106000
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0013
https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780190882631.003.0008
https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-BJA10061
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00778.x
https://lbsherald.org/index.php/journal/article/view/48
https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2018.70
https://doi.org/10.55324/ijoms.v3i9.895
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_13
https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730x.sdgsreview.v5.n02.pe02561
https://doi.org/10.24818/tbj/2023/13/2.06


Lutsenko et al., Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research 11(1) (2026), 69-79

 

 
79 

Shevchuk, O., & Yarova, A. (2022). Prevention and settlement of conflicts of interest in health care of Ukraine as an 

administrative legal institute. Juridical Tribune, 12(3), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/3.0 

Skliarenko, I. (2019). The concept, characteristics and types of communal property as a kind of public property. Actual 

problems of law, 1(2), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.35774/app2019.02.077  

Sysoiev, D., Pidbereznykh, I., Mazur, H., Tellis, S., & Vandin, Y. (2024). Administrative law mechanisms for preventing 

and countering corruption in the field of territorial defence. Sapienza: International Journal of Interdisciplinary 

Studies, 5(4), e24069. https://doi.org/10.51798/sijis.v5i4.859 

Vicente, M. (2022). Property rights and legitimate expectations under United States constitutional law and the European 

Convention on Human Rights: Abstract some comparative remarks. SSRN Electronic Journal. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4173176  

 
 

Publisher’s Note: CRIBFB stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee CRIBFB, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research (P-ISSN 2687-850X   E-ISSN 2687-8518) by CRIBFB is licensed under a Creative 

Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

https://doi.org/10.35774/app2019.02.077
https://doi.org/10.51798/sijis.v5i4.859
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4173176
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

