CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD062A9B5 { width:4.56%; 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 } .s911B6F81 { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s304E8EB7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8C640720 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1889FCBD { width:19.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE63D43A8 { width:50.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31226D61 { width:4.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3FE1E5CE { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s272BBA62 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s92370B00 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45FE4A2 { width:19.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAF11730B { width:50.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s270ABA62 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 29 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64510/12 Volodymyr Mykhaylovych KUDLA against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ claims, appeals and/or cassation appeals in the civil and administrative proceedings to which they were parties were not examined on the merits for their failure to pay the relevant court fees. In particular, the courts held that the applicants’ requests for exemption from the obligation to pay those fees on account of their lack of funds were unfounded (further details are set out in the appended table). Allegedly, this resulted in the disproportionate restriction of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants in all four applications concerned have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that their claims, appeals and/or cassation appeals were not examined on the merits for their failure to pay the relevant court fees? 2.     In so far as application no.   61415/13 is concerned, did the Higher Administrative Court give adequate reasons for its decision of 21   August 2013 rejecting the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the inadmissibility decision of the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal of 14   February 2013?   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 1. 64510/12 26/09/2012 Kudla v. Ukraine Volodymyr Mykhaylovych KUDLA 1986 Poberezzhya Ukrainian   Represented by Ruslan Mykolayovych KARVATSKYY The applicant’s appeals against the judgment of the Tysmenytsya Town Court of 8   July   2012 allowing a claim of a credit union for the recovery of the applicant’s debt were dismissed as inadmissible by the appellate court and the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) for his failure to pay the court fee of around 10   euros. The courts held that the fact that he was unemployed and lived at his mother’s house, evidenced by the official documents he had submitted in the proceedings, was insufficient to exempt him from the obligation to pay that fee pursuant to Article   82 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time. The courts gave no further details in that regard. The final decision was delivered by the HSCCM on 7 July 2012. 2. 61415/13 16/09/2013 Boychuk v. Ukraine Petro Ivanovych BOYCHUK 1954 Silets Ukrainian In September 2012 the applicant, who at the material time was unemployed and in that connection was allocated a monthly allowance of around 80 euros and also had the official status of a person with income lower than the official “minimum living standard” (малозабезпечений), lodged with the Tysmenytsya Town Court (the first-instance court) an administrative claim against the authorities challenging their refusal to increase his allowance so that it was equal to the official monthly “minimum living standard” of around 110 euros in 2012. In that regard, he submitted, inter alia, the official documents concerning his status and income. On 11   December   2012 the first-instance court, having exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the relevant court fee (around 10   euros) and having examined the claim on the merits, rejected it, finding no fault on the part of the authorities. By decision of 14   February   2013, the appellate court (the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal) dismissed the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible for his failure to pay the relevant court fee in the amount of around 5   euros and in particular held that he had failed to provide documents in support of his request for exemption from paying that fee pursuant to Article   88 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time. On 27 February 2013 the Higher Administrative Court (the cassation court) granted the applicant’s request to lodge an appeal on points of law (cassation appeal) against the appellate court’s inadmissibility decision of 14 February 2013 without paying the court fee because of his lack of funds. On 21 August 2013 the cassation court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s inadmissibility decision of 14 February 2013 as unfounded, without providing any specific reasoning in that regard. Consequently, the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance court’s judgment of 11 December 2012 was not examined on the merits, which was allegedly in violation of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. 3. 77718/13 11/10/2013 Raspryakhin v. Ukraine Igor Oleksiyovych RASPRYAKHIN 1967 Kropivnitskiy Ukrainian On 15   January   2010 the Kirovskyy District Court in Kirovograd allowed the applicant’s former spouse’s claim for divorce. On 19   February   2013 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 22   April   2013 the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s cassation appeal for his failure to pay the court fee of around 7   euros. The HSCCM held that he had not demonstrated that he had had no money to pay it and thus rejected his request for exemption from the obligation to pay that fee pursuant to Article   82 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time, which was supported by a certificate issued by the administration of a detention facility attesting that the applicant had been continuously detained at that facility since 2009 and had had no income. 4. 28604/14 24/05/2014 Boychuk v. Ukraine Petro Ivanovych BOYCHUK 1954 Silets Ukrainian In September 2013 the applicant lodged with the Tysmenytsya Town Court a new claim, which was essentially the same as that of September 2012 (see the details concerning the applicant’s another application no.   61415/13 set out above), except that it concerned a different period of time. By several decisions delivered between October and December 2013, the first-instance and appellate courts refused to examine his claim and appeal on the merits for his failure to pay the court fees of around 10 and 5 euros respectively. They held that the applicant’s requests for exemption from the obligation to pay those fees were unfounded, without providing any further details in that regard. By the final decision of 14 January 2014, the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal, finding no fault on the part of the lower courts.