CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .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 }   Communicated on 7 December 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42015/10 Tatyana Vasilyevna PODZOROVA and Igor Yulyevich PODZOROV against Ukraine lodged on 8 July 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mrs. Tatyana Vasilyevna Podzorova and Mr Igor Yulyevich Podzorov are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1950 and 1972 respectively and live in Kharkiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 1 June 2006 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the domestic courts seeking the quashing of a decision by the local authorities which allowed reconstruction of the buiding in which the applicants had their apartment. On 6 June 2006 the Kyivskyy Local Court of Kharkiv refused to examine the merits of the applicants’ claim and held that it should have been examined in administrative proceedings. Accordingly, the applicants instituted administrative proceedings before the same court, which on 26   June 2007 rejected the applicants’ claim. On 26 November 2007 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and allowed the applicants’ claim. On 27 January 2010 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 26 November 2007 and terminated the proceedings in the administrative case on the grounds that it fell to be examined under the civil justice procedure. On 21 April 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ claim for extraordinary review of the case. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic courts to examine the merits of their respective claims, which deprived them of their right of access to court.     QUESTION Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the termination of the proceedings in their case on the ground that the domestic courts had no subject matter jurisdiction over them?