CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juin 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 14 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24366/11 Volodymyr Oleksandrovych SARABASH against Ukraine lodged on 6 April 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Sarabash, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Reni. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 27 March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. They were terminated on 22 January 2001 for lack of evidence of a crime. The applicant lodged a claim with the law-enforcement authorities seeking compensation in respect of the above-mentioned proceedings. On 7   June 2001 the police informed the applicant that his claim had been rejected. On 28 May 2001 the decision to discontinue the proceedings in the applicant’s criminal case was quashed and the proceedings were subsequently resumed. They were terminated on 10 October 2004, again for lack of evidence of a crime. The applicant lodged another request with the law-enforcement authorities, seeking compensation in respect of the above-mentioned proceedings. By a letter of 17 June 2006, the police informed him that his claim had been rejected as unsubstantiated, adding that he could lodge a new claim with the domestic courts. The applicant brought proceedings before the domestic courts against the police authorities, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of the criminal proceedings against him. 1.     Claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage On 5 March 2009 the Reniyskyy Local Court of the Odessa Region allowed the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 23   September 2009 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal partly amended the above-mentioned judgment and reduced the award in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage granted to the applicant. 2.     Claim in respect of pecuniary damage On 11 February 2010 the Reniynskyy Local Court of the Odessa Region allowed the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage in the amount of 17,365 hryvnias (UAH). On 24 June 2010 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s case on the grounds that such a claim should not have been examined by the domestic courts. In particular, the court found that under the domestic legislation in force, it was for the police to define the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage in the applicant’s case by adopting a formal decision. The court also considered that it had no jurisdiction over the case, as the domestic legislation provided for a different procedure for lodging claims, namely through challenging a police decision, whereas the police’s decision to reject the applicant’s compensation claim as a whole had been stated in a simple letter. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was rejected on 8   October 2010 by the Supreme Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention of the failure of the domestic courts to examine his claim for damages, alleging that it had deprived him of the right of access to a court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine his claim for compensation (see Matsyuk v.   Ukraine , no. 1751/03, 10 December 2009)?