CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MERKULOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 38055/22)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Merkulov v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 July 2022. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms Y.O. Parul, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 3.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 5.     The applicant complained of the denial of access to higher courts. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6.     The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14   June 2007; Matsyuk v.   Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v.   Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Furthermore, it is not for this Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, §§   23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references). 7.     In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§   52-67, ECHR   2001‑VI), and Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18   November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Gavrilov , cited above § 36, and Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the denial of access to higher courts; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (denial of access to higher courts) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Specific irregularity complained of Case-law Facts and relevant information Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 38055/22 20/07/2022 Yevgen Vyacheslavovych MERKULOV 1990 Parul Yuliya Olegivna Kyiv unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Mushta v. Ukraine , no. 8863/06, 18 November 2010 On 22/07/2021 the police drew up an administrative offence report against the applicant for driving while being intoxicated. The report contained only the name of the Desnyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv to decide on the case, with no date and time set. On 17/08/2021 the court held a hearing, delivered a decision finding the applicant guilty, imposing a fine of UAH 17,000 (around EUR 535) and suspending his driving license for one year. The decision was made available to public in the online State Register of Court Decisions on 19/08/2021. The applicant claims that he learnt about the decision only on 25/01/2022. On 31/01/2022 his lawyer requested the court to familiarise with the casefile but was only afforded it on 11/02/2022. On 13/02/2022 the applicant lodged an appeal with a request for leave to appeal, referring to non-notification of the court proceedings and delay by the Desnyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv in allowing the applicant to familiarise with the casefile. By a decision of 16/05/2022, the Kyiv Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal, reasoning that it was lodged 18 days after the date on which the applicant had become aware of the first-instance court’s decision, while the law provides for a 10-day time-limit; the argument as to the belated familiarisation with the casefile was rejected as insufficient since, according to the Court of Appeal, the applicant could have filed an appeal relying on the court decision itself. 1,500 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.