CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s4BE4E43F { width:121.28%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sC76FB512 { width:3.74%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s44E3D84B { width:7.48%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s41989834 { width:6.54%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sEDF1C0B9 { width:14.04%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sF919865 { width:8.42%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sC6AEDEDA { width:13.98%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s99701085 { width:11.22%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7F0F1A24 { width:11.2%; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sE7577393 { width:23.38%; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s70DF66CB { width:3.74%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s32546F9F { width:7.48%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB07E166D { width:6.54%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB68D66E2 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF599D18A { width:8.42%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCB43A112 { width:13.98%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB382B475 { width:11.22%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDF2DEAE { width:11.2%; border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42A070F6 { width:23.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF45DBE9 { width:3.74%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CFDD05F { width:7.48%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC047EF7 { width:6.54%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s761DECA4 { width:14.04%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s47A8CF60 { width:8.42%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE160DB4F { width:13.98%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s87DF3189 { width:11.22%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3EC100C0 { width:11.2%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCFA5F980 { width:23.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 4827/11 Nina Mykhaylivna METYOLKINA against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see table appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants in applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16 are Ukrainian nationals. The applicant company in application no. 26672/14 is a private company based in Ukraine. The applicants’ personal details and other relevant information are set out in the appendix below. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16 The applicants concerned were parties to proceedings before civil or administrative courts. They did not take part in the hearings on appeal either because their participation was not required or because there was no oral hearing. The relevant procedural regulations (Article   222   §   3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Articles 167   §   3 and 197   §   3 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time) required appellate courts to send copies of the adopted appeal decisions to the applicants within short delays - between two and five days. Allegedly, in the cases of the applicants concerned, this was done after longer delays. In so far as applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 24892/13 and   45201/16 are concerned, the delayed dispatch of the appeal decisions allegedly resulted in that the applicants concerned were not able to lodge their cassation appeals within the applicable twenty-day time-limit (Article   325 §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Article   212   §   2 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time). For that reason, when lodging their cassation appeals with the cassation courts, those applicants also requested extension of that time-limit, for which they provided detailed and specific explanations and documentary evidence, including postal receipts. As to application no.   18059/12, in her cassation appeal, the applicant provided detailed reasoning, based on a specific legal provision – Article   254 §   5 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time, arguing that in her case the applicable time-limit of twenty days had not expired. As it transpires from the material submitted by the applicants, the cassation courts, which were empowered to grant extension of the impugned time-limit where it had been missed for “justifiable reasons” ( поважні причини , Article 325   §   2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Article   214 §   4 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time), either ignored or dismissed the applicants’ submissions concerning the application of the above time-limit. Consequently, the applicants’ cassation appeals were rejected as lodged out of time without having been examined on the merits. Further details are set out in the appendix below. B.     Application no. 26672/14 The applicant company’s representative in the civil proceedings, to which it was a party, was present at the hearing of 16   July 2013 before Severodonetsk Court (first-instance court), at which that court pronounced the introductory and operative parts of its judgment. On 17 July 2013 the applicant company’s representative lodged with that court a written request for a full text of the judgment and asked it to inform him as to when the full text would be ready, which was required by Article   218   §   1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time. By letter of 7 September 2013, Severodonetsk Court sent the full text of its judgment to the applicant company’s representative. It was delivered to him on 10 September 2013. On 11 September 2013 the representative lodged with the Lugansk Court of Appeal an appeal against the judgment of 16   July 2013 and requested extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit (Article   294   §   1 of the of Civil Procedure of 2004), which he had missed allegedly because of the belated receipt of the full text of the contested judgment. By decision of 16 October 2013, the Lugansk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal as lodged out of time, having held that no “justifiable reasons” had been put forward for the requested extension of the time-limit. On 18 November 2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters dismissed the applicant company’s cassation appeal, having found no breach of the procedural rules on account of the contested decision of the court of appeal. Further details are set out in the appendix below. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about a violation of their right of access to a court. Some of the applicants also invoke Article   13 of the Convention in that regard. COMMON QUESTION FOR APPLICATIONS nOS. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16 Has there been an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that their cassation appeals were not examined on the merits? QUESTION FOR APPLICATION nO. 26672/14 Has there been an infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that its   appeal   was   not   examined   on   the   merits? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence Represented by Subject-matter of the dispute Alleged lack of access to Final decision Alleged shortcoming   4827/11* 06/01/2011 Nina Mykhaylivna METYOLKINA 28/02/1939 Severodonetsk   No representative Recalculation of pension Supreme Court 27/05/2010 delivered to the applicant on 27/07/2010 The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having ignored the applicant’s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court’s decision.   75428/11* 01/12/2011 Gennadiy Pavlovych KOVAL 08/05/1968 Novosafronivka   No representative Validity of a loan contract Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) 06/05/2011 The HSCCM dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that the applicant’s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appeal) court’s decision was inadmissible.   305/12* 08/12/2011 Igor Viktorovych SKLYAROV 10/08/1965 Novostriltsivka   No representative Validity of changes to a loan contract Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) 10/05/2011 delivered to the applicant on 17/06/2011 The HSCCM dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that the applicant’s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court’s decision was inadmissible.   18059/12* 19/03/2012 Zinaida Sergeyevna OZERSKAYA 27/07/1951 Torez   No representative Recalculation of pension Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”) 01/11/2011 The HAC dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons for not having taken into consideration the date on which the contested decision had been dispatched to the applicant, even though under the relevant domestic law as worded at the material time (Article 254   §   5 of the Code of Administrative Justice) this was crucial for the determination of the starting point for the impugned time-limit.   24892/13* 04/04/2013 Ganna Grygorivna KOSYANCHUK 11/07/1930 Poltava   No representative Recalculation of social payments Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”) 12/10/2012 The HAC’s decision dismissing the applicant’s cassation appeal as lodged out of time and refusing her request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court’s decision was not in accordance with the law as worded at the material time (Articles 212   §   2 and 254 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Justice) and was disproportionate.   26672/14 25/03/2014 STRAKHOVA KOMPANIYA UNIVERSALNA, PAT 23/12/1994 Kyiv   Mykola Yevgenovych PIKA Lawyer practising in Lviv Compensation claim against a private person Lugansk Court of Appeal 18/11/2013 Lugansk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that its request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on belated receipt of a copy of the lower (first-instance) court’s decision was inadmissible.   45201/16 21/07/2016 Nadiya Yosafativna KRAKALOVYCH 10/09/1971 Khmelnytskyy   No representative Bailiffs’ refusal to enforce a judgment awarding the applicant a sum to be paid by a private person Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) 17/03/2016 The applicant was required to lodge her cassation appeal with the HSCCM within 20 days of the date of the adoption of the lower (appellate) court’s judgment of 11   December 2015. As she had not been present at the hearing of that date and had been notified of the contested decision 14 days later - on 25   December 2015, the applicant requested extension of that time-limit until 6   January 2016, the date on which she lodged her cassation appeal with the HSCCM, so that at least part of the twenty-day statutory period was thereby afforded to her. She argued that she needed that time to prepare her cassation appeal. The HSCCM considered that she should have lodged her cassation appeal by 31   December 2015 and that she had provided no justifiable reasons for her failure to comply with that time-limit. The HSCCM gave no further explanation in that regard.