CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s556D3942 { width:152.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16505/23 Gennadiy Volodymyrovych KRUPNYK against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 March 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   16505/23) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 March 2023 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Gennadiy Volodymyrovych Krupnyk, who was born in 1964 and lives in Lviv (“the applicant”); Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the sale of the applicant’s seized property at the allegedly undervalued price. 2.     In February 2021 the applicant brought proceedings challenging the actions of a private debt collector regarding the sale of his property. By a judgment of the Zhovkva Court of Lviv Region, upheld by the Lviv Court of Appeal on 5 July 2022, following a public hearing, the applicant’s claim was dismissed on the merits. At the end of the hearing, at which the applicant’s legal representative was present, the appellate court pronounced the introductory and operative parts of its decision. The full text of its decision was prepared on 7   July   2022, published in the State Register of Court Decisions on 13   July   2022 and sent to the applicant by post on 23 August 2022. 3.     On 21 September 2022 the applicant appealed in cassation against the appellate court’s decision of 5 July 2022 and asked the Supreme Court to extend the statutory thirty-day time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal. He submitted, in this respect, that he had received the full text of the contested decision on 25   August 2022. 4 .     According to Article 390 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the statutory thirty-day period starts running from the date on which a decision is pronounced by an appellate court. If only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are pronounced at the court hearing, this period starts running from the date on which the full text of the decision is prepared. Once the decision has been prepared, it is published in the State Register of Court Decisions in accordance with well-established national practice. Parties to the proceedings can familiarise themselves with the decision and obtain a copy of it as soon as it is published. 5 .     On 2 December 2022 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for an extension and refused to open cassation proceedings stating that (i) the applicant’s representative had attended the appellate court hearing held on 5 July 2022 and had been informed of the contested decision on that date; (ii) the contested decision had been publicly available since 13   July 2022; and (iii) the applicant had failed to provide any explanation as to why he or his representative had not asked the appellate court to provide a copy of its decision prior to 23   August 2022. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 6.     The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention about the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine his cassation appeal and about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings on the merits. 7.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.     The relevant principles emerging from the Court’s case-law concerning the right of access to a court are summarised in, among other authorities, Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018). 9.     The Court reiterates that rules governing the formal steps to be taken and the time-limits to be complied with in lodging an appeal are aimed at ensuring a proper administration of justice and compliance, in particular, with the principle of legal certainty (see, for example, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , no. 38366/97, §§ 33 and 36, ECHR 2000-I, and Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002‑IX). The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on the interested parties to display special diligence in the defence of their interests and to take the necessary steps to apprise themselves of the developments in the proceedings (see Karakutsya v. Ukraine , no. 18986/06, §§ 53-60, 16 February 2017). 10.     In the present case, the Court notes that the national law is clear in respect of the starting date of the statutory time-limit for filing a cassation appeal (see paragraph 4 above). 11.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing held before the appellate court on 5   July 2022 and had been thus informed of the introductory and operative parts of the appellate court’s decision on the same date. It is true that the full text of this decision was sent to the applicant only on 23   August   2022, who received it on 25 August 2022. However, having been prepared on 7 July 2022, the decision was available in the State Register of Court Decisions on 13 July 2022, where the applicant or his representative could obtain it. Or, as the Supreme Court already noted, they could ask the appellate court to provide a copy of its decision (see paragraph 5 above). However, neither the applicant nor his legal representative, who had not stated before the Supreme Court – nor did so the applicant in the present application - that the well-established national practice concerning the publication of court decisions in the State Register of Court Decisions (see paragraph 4 above) had been unknown to them or unclear, availed themselves of any of these procedural possibilities. 12.     In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant and his lawyer, as the party to the proceedings, demonstrated the requisite diligence in following the developments in the proceedings and did not take any reasonable steps to obtain the full text when it became available. 13.     The Court thus considers that by rejecting, on the basis of applicable law, the applicant’s cassation appeal as having been lodged out of time, the Supreme Court did not act too rigidly, nor did it restrict the applicant’s right of access to court in a manner incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Tanja Oškrt Bunjevčević v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 1789/15, §§   50-71, 16 March 2021). Accordingly, his complaint concerning the lack of access to that court should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 14.     As to the applicant’s complaint concerning the outcome of the proceedings, it must be rejected for his failure to exhaust domestic remedies pursuant to Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention, given that the applicant failed to lodge his cassation appeal with the Supreme Court in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 April 2025.     Martina Keller   Andreas Zünd   Deputy Registrar   President