CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 2019

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 23 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10605/11 Yevgeniy Semenovich PIVOVAROV against Ukraine lodged on 2 February 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant lodged a civil claim against a local branch of the Pension Fund seeking recalculation of war invalid additional payments to his pension for the period between 2000 and 2005 in accordance with the Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of their Social Welfare Benefits Act. On 18 June 2010 the Kirovskyy District Court of Donetsk rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed. On 31 August 2010 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal considered the claim in accordance with the Status of Chernobyl Victims Act, as if the applicant asked for recalculation of the Chernobyl invalid pension, and rejected it. This decision was final. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal lacked adequate reasoning.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal state adequate reasons for its decision of 31 August 2010?