CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 10 January 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14692/14 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych PAVLIV against Ukraine lodged on 16 July 2012 communicated on 15 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rejection by the domestic courts of the applicant’s claim for annulment of a collective agreement and the resulting alleged denial of his right of access to a court. The applicant worked in coal industry. Under the Mining Law of Ukraine, after his retirement the applicant became entitled to obtain, free of charge, coal from his former employer for household purposes. The quality of coal was established by a collective agreement concluded between a State-owned company L. and two trade unions of mining workers. The amendments to the collective agreement of 2007-2009 introduced a different quality standard of coal allocated to retired workers. The applicant instituted court proceedings against L. and the trade unions seeking to invalidate the amendments to the collective agreement. He claimed that the coal he had received under the 2007 amendments was not suitable for the intended purpose, in particular for heating. Domestic courts at three levels of jurisdiction (the last decision dated 17 January 2012) rejected the applicant’s claim holding that he was not a party to the collective agreement and that, consequently, he was not entitled to seek its invalidation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with this Article?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant suffered a significant disadvantage because of the changes to the collective agreement and because of the courts’ refusal to examine his claims on their merits?