CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s761D06F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1E925837 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:4.51pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }   Published on 22 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 14731/12 and 32526/13 Galyna Pavlivna MYRONENKO against Ukraine and Artem Valeriyovych GUSELNYKOV against Ukraine lodged on 7 March 2012 and 13 May 2013 respectively communicated on 3 November 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ claims were ultimately not examined on the merits because of the courts’ allegedly conflicting positions/instructions regarding which court had jurisdiction to determine them (further details are set out in the appended table). The applicants complain, relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, that they were unfairly denied access to the courts regarding their claims.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, regarding being had to the fact that their claims were ultimately not examined on the merits?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Facts and relevant information, as submitted by the applicants     14731/12 07/03/2012 Myronenko v. Ukraine Galyna Pavlivna MYRONENKO 1961 Kyiv Ukrainian The applicant’s compensation claim of January   2005 against the Bailiffs Service, which was lodged and initially examined on the merits under the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and subsequently under the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, was finally dismissed as falling outside the administrative courts’ jurisdiction by the decision of the Higher Administrative Court of 4   October   2011. The administrative courts held that it had to be examined in the framework of civil proceedings.   32526/13 13/05/2013 Guselnykov v. Ukraine Artem Valeriyovych GUSELNYKOV 1992 Tarasivka Ukrainian The applicant initially lodged his claim against the Customs Service Academy, seeking to be provided with the State-funded higher education, recovery of the tuition fees he had already paid and compensation, with an administrative court and was instructed, by the latter’s decision of 12   October 2010, to lodge it with the civil courts. Accordingly, the applicant lodged it with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipro. However, the latter examined the merits of the claim under the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005 and, by the judgement of 12 May 2011, rejected it as unfounded. By decision of 26   January   2012, the Dnipro Administrative Court of Appeal quashed that judgement and terminated the proceedings, holding that the claim had to be examined in the framework of civil proceedings. On 13   March   2013 the Higher Administrative Court upheld that decision.