CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 28 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23606/13 Vasyl Ivanovych POTAPENKO against Ukraine lodged on 29 March 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to a fair trial by a tribunal established by law and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. On 29 June 2011 the Brovary District Court of Kyiv Region allowed the applicant’s claim seeking re-calculation of the amount of his pension as a working pensioner and payment of additional Chernobyl pension. The Pension Fund of Ukraine appealed against this decision in so far as it concerned the recalculation issue. On 27 September 2012 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the District Court and rejected the applicant’s claim in full, whereas neither the Pension Fund nor the applicant had requested the appellate court to re-consider the issue of payment of additional Chernobyl pension. The applicant received the above decision on 14 December 2012. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to quash the decision of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned the payment of additional Chernobyl pension?   2.     If not: (a)     has the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a fair trial by a tribunal established by law been violated? (b)     has the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 been violated?