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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5701/11 Viktor Andriyovych BANDURKA against Ukraine lodged on 14 January 2011 Application no. 5705/11 Lyubov Ivanivna BANDURKA against Ukraine lodged on 14 January 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS Application no. 5701/11 Viktor Andriyovych BANDURKA against Ukraine The applicant, Mr. Bandurka Viktor Andriyovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born on 25   June   1943 and lives in Kovalyn. The circumstances of the case The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant has the special status of “a child of war” and was entitled to a special supplement to his pension in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension in accordance with section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act ( Закон України Про соціальний захист дітей війни ). The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts seeking allocation of the above special supplement for the periods between 1 June 2006 and 1 June 2009, as well as starting from July 2009 on a monthly basis. On 2 October 2009 the Pereyasliv-Khmelnytskyy Local Court of Kyiv Region examined the applicant’s claim in administrative proceedings. The court partly allowed the claim and held that the respective pension supplement for the period between 3 September 2008 and September 2009 inclusive should be allocated to him. The applicant’s claim for allocation of the pension supplement for other periods was rejected. On 19 October 2009 the applicant appealed to the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. As he had received no information concerning the examination of that appeal, on 18 August 2010, he sent a request for information to the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. On 16 September 2010 the applicant received a response from the above court, stating that in accordance with the Jurisdiction of Courts to Examine Cases Related to Social Payments (amendments) Act ( Закону України Про внесення змін до деяких законодавчих актів України щодо підвідомчості справ, пов’язаних із соціальними виплатами – hereinafter “the Jurisdiction of Courts Act”) of 18 February 2009 the applicant’s case had been transferred on 13 May 2010 to the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal for examination in civil proceedings. On 30 September 2010 the applicant sent a request to the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, seeking information about the state of proceedings in his case. On 5 October 2010 the said court informed the applicant that starting from 9 September 2010 it had no jurisdiction to examine cases related to social payments. In particular, the court referred in this connection to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision of 9 September 2010 that had found unconstitutional the Jurisdiction of Courts Act of 18 February 2009. Since that time the applicant has not been informed of any further progress in his appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic courts to examine his appeal, alleging that it had deprived him of the right of access to court. The applicant further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of an interference with his property rights by virtue of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine his appeal seeking allocation of pension supplements. Application no. 5705/11 Lyubov Ivanivna BANDURKA against Ukraine   The applicant, Mrs. Bandurka Lyubov Ivanivna, is a Ukrainian national who was born on 1   May   1943 and lives in Kovalyn. The circumstances of the case The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant has the special status of “a child of war” and was entitled to a special supplement to her pension in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension in accordance with section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act ( Закон України Про соціальний захист дітей війни ). The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts seeking allocation of the above special supplement for the periods between 1 June 2006 and 1 June 2009, as well as starting from July 2009 on a monthly basis. On 2 October 2009 the Pereyasliv-Khmelnytskyy Local Court of Kyiv Region examined the applicant’s claim in administrative proceedings. The court partly allowed the claim and held that the respective pension supplement for the period between 3 September 2008 and September 2009 inclusive should be allocated to her. The applicant’s claim seeking allocation of the pension supplement for other periods was rejected. On 19 October 2009 the applicant appealed to the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. As she had received no information concerning the examination of her appeal, on 18 August 2010, she sent a request for information to the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. On 14 September 2010 the applicant received response from the above court stating that in accordance with the Jurisdiction of Courts to Examine Cases Related to Social Payments (amendments) Act ( Закону України Про внесення змін до деяких законодавчих актів України щодо підвідомчості справ, пов’язаних із соціальними виплатами – hereinafter “the Jurisdiction of Courts Act”) of 18 February 2009 the applicant’s case had been transferred on 13 May 2010 to the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal for examination in civil proceedings. On 30 September 2010 the applicant sent a request to the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, seeking information about the state of proceedings in her case. On 5 October 2010 the said court informed the applicant that starting from 9 September 2010 it had no jurisdiction to examine the cases related to social payments. In particular, the court referred in this connection to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision of 9 September 2010 that had found unconstitutional the Jurisdiction of Courts Act of 18 February 2009. Since that time the applicant has not been informed of any further progress in her appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic courts to examine her appeal, alleging that it had deprived her of the right of access to court. The applicant further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of an interference with her property rights by virtue of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine her appeal seeking allocation of pension supplements. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     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 refusal of the domestic courts to examine their appeals? 2.     Did the applicants have a legitimate expectation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of receiving a supplement to their pensions between 1 June 2006 and 1 June 2009, as well as starting from July 2009? 3.     Did the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the merits of the applicants’ appeals impair their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did it impose on the applicants a disproportionate burden, contrary to their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions?