CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 11 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36124/13 Valeriy Mykolayovych KOTLYAR against Ukraine lodged on 22 May 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns a dispute of the applicant, a retired police officer, with the State authorities over his entitlement to a higher amount of pension. By a final judgment of 3 July 2012, delivered in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of the defendant’s representative, the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgments of lower courts delivered in the applicant’s favour and rejected the applicant’s claim by which the latter sought to declare unlawful certain provisions of a governmental decree on procedure for recalculation of pensions. Relying of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was denied a fair trial in his case as he had not been notified of the cassation proceedings, and a copy of the cassation appeal of the opposite party had not been communicated to him for comments. According to the applicant, he became aware of the final judgment in his case by chance on 22 November 2012.     QUESTIONS 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, was the principle of equality of arms respected in his case, given the applicant’s allegation that he had not been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing at the cassation court and that he had not been given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the cassation appeal lodged by the other party? Was the applicant duly notified of a final judgment delivered in his case?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents including those concerning notification of the applicant of the cassation proceedings in his case and their outcome.