CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 10 July 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 75792/11 Alla Petrivna SHEBALDINA against Ukraine lodged on 1 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Alla Petrivna Shebaldina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyy. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. During the period between 1988 and 2006 the applicant was employed as a teacher in a State educational institution, a specialised child-care centre in the city of Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyy. Under the domestic law, as in force at the time in question, the applicant was entitled to the extra payment of a seniority allowance corresponding to 30% of her salary. However, during the period between 1997 and 2006 the applicant did not receive the above ‑ mentioned seniority allowance. The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts against the specialised child-care centre, seeking payment of the respective salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 27 January 2009 the Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyy Local Court of Odesa Region dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that she had not been entitled to the arrears in question. On 22 April 2009, following an appeal by the applicant, the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. On 24 February 2010, following an appeal by the child-care centre, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the appellate court. On 28 October 2010 the Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyy Local Court of Odesa Region allowed the applicant’s claim against the specialised child-care centre and the regional State Treasury and ordered her employer to pay her salary arrears in the amount of 2244 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (around 204   euros (EUR) at the material time), index-linked in the amount of 4,336   UAH (around 394 EUR at the material time). The applicant’s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was dismissed. On 29 April 2011 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. In particular, the court found that even though the applicant was entitled to the arrears in question, neither her employer nor the regional State Treasury were liable for the respective payments. The court considered that the payment had to be made from the State budget but that was not technically possible due to the absence of a budget line which could cover such payment. On 21 July 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court refused to examine the merits of the applicant’s appeal on points of law. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the failure to pay her a seniority allowance in addition to her salary amounted to a violation of her property rights. She also states, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, that an effective remedy was not available in her case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have access to an effective remedy in her case, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?