CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 17 December 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 32638/09 Adil Idrys-Ogly GARUNOV against Ukraine lodged on 8 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Adil Idrys-Ogly Garunov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Odessa. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 21 January 2004 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Prymorskyy District Department of the Pension Fund seeking an extension of his entitlement to a disability pension, recovery of arrears and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 6 October 2004 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Prymorskyy Court”) allowed his claim in part. On 23 March 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. On 29 July 2005 the Prymorskyy Court allowed the applicant’s claim in so far as it concerned the extension of his pension entitlement and the recovery of arrears. The court, however, rejected his claim in the part concerning the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 30 November 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. Its ruling, as noted therein, could be appealed on points of law within two months from its pronouncement. On 25 January 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. On 8 February 2006 the Supreme Court forwarded it to the Higher Administrative Court on the ground that it was the latter’s competence following the entry into force of the Code of Administrative Justice on 1   September 2005. On 28 July 2006 the Higher Administrative Court left the applicant’s appeal on points of law without examination. It noted that, pursuant to the Code of Administrative Justice, an appeal on points of law could be lodged within a month from the date of the appellate court’s ruling. Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal was considered as belated. On an unspecified date later the Higher Administrative Court apparently reconsidered its position. On 24 March 2008 it invited the applicant to rectify some shortcomings of his appeal on points of law and to resubmit it by 14 April 2008. On 11 August 2008 the Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction over the applicant’s appeal on points of law considering that it fell to be examined under the civil procedure. On 9 January 2009 the aforementioned ruling was sent to the applicant. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of access to the cassation-instance court.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, deriving from the refusal of the Higher Administrative Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine to consider his appeal on points of law in the proceedings against the Pension Fund?