CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 May 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2188/11 KAZIMIR UKRAINE CONVERGENCE FUND LIMITED against Ukraine lodged on 23 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the foreseeability of the restriction of the applicant’s right to access to the Supreme Court and the compatibility of this restriction with the legal certainty principle. The applicant, a company registered in the Cayman Islands, had a commercial dispute concerning recovery of stock dividends which was ruled against it on 9 June 2010 by the Higher Commercial Court (“the HCC”) acting as the court of cassation. Being entitled by the law to repeat its appeal on points of law, the applicant-company did so on 8 July 2010; however the HCC refused to forward the appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court and returned it without examination on the following day in the light of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 11 March 2010 according to which the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction within the meaning of the Constitution of Ukraine to review decisions of the HCC in commercial disputes. The case raises issues similar to those in the cases of Ageyeva v. Ukraine (no. 42520/10), Khlabystova v. Ukraine (no. 54581/10), and Zakarpatska Oblasna Spilka Spozhyvchykh Tovarystv v. Ukraine (no. 65719/10) (communicated). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was the Higher Commercial Court’s refusal to forward the applicant’s appeal on points of law and the relevant case file to the Supreme Court compatible with the applicant’s rights under Articles 6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention? In particular, were those actions foreseeable under the relevant domestic legislation and compatible with the legal certainty principle?