CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s8F58BBB8 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11691/06 Vladimir Vasilyevich GAVRILOV against Ukraine lodged on 10 March 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vasilyevich Gavrilov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in the city of Simferopol, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In December 2004 the applicant, a retired military officer, instituted proceedings in the Simferopol Garrison Military Court against the local Military Enlistment Office seeking to oblige the latter to recalculate his pension. On 20 May 2005 the court found against the applicant. On 11 August 2005 the Navy Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 17 October 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine refused to initiate proceedings upon the applicant’s appeal in cassation due to its procedural shortcomings (failure to pay the court fee and to submit additional copies of appeal to be send to all parties), indicating that the applicant may re-lodge his rectified cassation appeal by 1 November 2005. The applicant sent his rectified appeal on 24 October 2005. On 7 November 2005 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine refused to initiate proceedings upon the applicant’s appeal in cassation, pointing out that the applicant had failed to rectify the procedural shortcomings within the prescribed time-limit. It appears that the applicant’s rectified appeal finally reached the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, which on 10 November 2005 refused to examine it as submitted too late. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the outcome of the proceedings in his case was unfavourable and therefore the proceedings as a whole were unfair, in particular, because the domestic courts allegedly erred in the assessment of the facts and application of the law. The applicant further complains that he was denied access to court given that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine refused to review his case in cassation. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against, his pension being lower than that of some other pensioners retired from the military service. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains that he was prevented from enjoying his possessions (recalculated pension). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the refusal of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine to consider the applicant’s appeal in cassation?   The parties are requested to submit copies of the applicant’s rectified appeal and all accompanying correspondence and documents lodged with the Higher Administrative Court after 17 October 2005.