CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57211/13 Ivan Ivanovych VYELYEV against Ukraine lodged on 27 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment of the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal of 7 September 2011 ordering recalculation of the applicant’s pension – which was delivered in abridged procedure and was not amendable to appeal according to the law – was quashed by the Higher Administrative Court on 4 July 2013 following examination of the defendant’s cassation appeal. The applicant’s claim was eventually rejected by that court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, was the principle of legal certainty respected given that the final judgment of 7 September 2011 was quashed?   2.     Did the quashing of the judgment of 7 September 2011 in the applicant’s favour constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and proportionate in its impact on the applicant’s right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   The Government are requested to provide all procedural documents relevant to the case.