CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 décembre 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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 21 December 2020 Published on 18 January 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64305/12 Oleksandr Yevgenovych STATIVKA against Ukraine lodged on 18 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Yevgenovych Stativka, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Kharkiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 4 May 2011 the applicant lodged a claim with the Lugansk District Administrative Court (“the District Court”) against his former employer, the local Military Enlistment Office (“the Office”), challenging the latter’s refusal to recalculate salary-related payments due to him. On 6 May 2011 the court returned the claim unexamined on the grounds that the applicant had learned about a breach of his rights on 14 December 2010 and had thus missed a one-month limitation period for lodging a claim, as provided for by special law for public servants. On 7 October 2011 the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above ruling and sent the case to the District Court for reconsideration. It found that the applicant’s claim concerned conditions of remuneration and was not therefore subject to any limitation period, as provided for, in particular, by Article 233 § 2 of the Labour Code. Following the reconsideration of the case, on 13 December 2011 the District Court partly allowed the claim and ordered the Office to recalculate and to pay to the applicant various salary-related arrears. It also referred to Article 233 § 2 of the Labour Code as applicable in the present case. On 15 February 2012 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 13   December 2011 and returned the claim unexamined on the grounds that the applicant had missed the limitation period for lodging his claim. It also held that the lower court’s reference to Article 233 § 2 of the Labour Code had been wrong, and referred instead to Article 99 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice which established a six-month limitation period for lodging administrative claims. The applicant appealed in cassation with the Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”) arguing, in particular, that the finding by the Court of Appeal that Article 233 § 2 of the Labour Code had not been applicable had been wrong, in particular, in view of its final ruling of 7 October 2011, in which it had found that that provision had been applicable in his case. He also relied on other similar cases in which the domestic courts, including the HAC, had not rejected claims as lodged outside the limitation period. In a summary ruling of 19 March 2012 the HAC refused to grant leave to the applicant’s appeal in cassation, without providing any specific reasons. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a breach of his right of access to court on account of the rulings of 15   February and 19 March 2012. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the rulings of 15 February and 19 March 2012?