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 } .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. 45965/08 Volodymyr Gennadiyovych OMELCHENKO and Tetyana Semenivna OMELCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 15 September 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr. Volodymyr Gennadiyovych Omelchenko and Mrs.   Tetyana Semenivna Omelchenko are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1970 respectively and live in Yasne. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows . In 2006 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the domestic courts seeking the transfer to them of a land plot with the aim of engaging in farming activity. On 25 May 2006 the Melitopolskyy Local Court refused to examine the merits of the applicants’ claim on the grounds that it fell to be examined under the administrative justice procedure. On 31May 2006 the applicants instituted administrative proceedings before the Melitopolskyy Local Court, which on 24 October 2006 rejected the applicants’ claim. On 14 March 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. The applicants appealed on points of law. On 20 February 2008 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the above decisions and terminated the proceedings in the applicants’ case. The court held that the case fell to be considered under the civil justice procedure. The decision of the Higher Administrative Court was communicated to the applicants on 3   March 2008. 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?