CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 31 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 4734/17 Svyatoslav Oleksandrovych CHUMACHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 4 January 2016 communicated on 11 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to have his civil case examined by a court because the judges of that court are not competent to examine any cases due to an ongoing reform of the judiciary. In December 2014 the applicant lent a certain amount of money to S., a private person. In September 2016 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Magdalynivka Court seeking recovery of the debt. He was informed that the judges working at that court were not competent to examine any cases due to changes in legislation adopted in the course of an ongoing reform of the judiciary. For this reason, the applicant’s claims have not been examined according to the latest information from the applicant, dating from 2017. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his complaints remained unexamined by the court and that, therefore, he did not have access to a court. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, as a result, he could not recover the debt. 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, did he have effective access to court regarding his complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Naït-Liman v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, §   112, 15 March 2018)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, for example, Plechanow v.   Poland , no.   22279/04, §§ 899-101, 7 July 2009)?