CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } Published on 18 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 41362/13 Lyubov Grygorivna NECHAYENKO against Ukraine lodged on 10 June 2013 communicated on 29 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The rent not having been paid by a private company for their neighbouring plots of land in 2011, the applicant and her brother brought separate claims against that company seeking the recovery of rent arrears and the termination of the land lease contracts, identical in all relevant respects. By the final decision of 5   December 2012, the Higher Specialized Court in Civil and Criminal Matters granted both claims of the applicant’s brother, holding, inter alia , that the non-payment of the rent was a serious violation of the contract and was a reason for its termination. By the final decision of 16 January 2013 in the applicant’s case, the same court allowed only her claim for rent arrears and dismissed her claim for the termination of the contract, holding that the failure to pay the rent for just one year did not reveal a systemic failure to comply with the relevant undertakings and thus could not be a ground for the requested termination of the company’s land use rights under Article   141 of the Land Code. The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention about the allegedly inconsistent decisions of the Higher Specialized Civil and Criminal Court in the two cases in question.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention in the applicant’s case on account of the allegedly inconsistent decisions of the Higher Specialized Civil and Criminal Court of 5   December   2012 and 16   January 2013 (see, for instance, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and   Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 116-128, 29 November 2016)?