CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 August 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17967/09 Mariya Mykhaylivna KYRIYENKO against Ukraine lodged on 16 March 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged failure of the domestic courts to answer important arguments submitted by the applicant before the courts of appeal and cassation in the context of a property dispute concerning acknowledgment of the title to half of a house which had allegedly been built with her contribution but which was officially owned by her mother and subsequently given to her sister. In the course of the proceedings the applicant submitted copies of receipts confirming purchase of building materials by her. During the hearings at the first instance court a number of witnesses engaged in construction of the disputed house were questioned. They confirmed that the applicant had paid them for their work. The witnesses also confirmed that they were aware of the fact that the house was being built for the applicant’s and her sister’s living. On 8 December 2008 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters refused to open proceedings on points of law against decisions of lower courts which found against the applicant. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the domestic courts ignored material evidence and witnesses’ statements given in her favour.     QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the reasoning contained in the judgments given by the domestic courts in the applicant’s proceedings sufficient to comply with the obligation of courts under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give reasons for their judgment (see for instance Siredzhuk v. Ukraine , no. 16901/03, §   63, 21   January 2016)?