CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2023

.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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 July 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 66128/16 Volodymyr Vasylyovych KASANDYAK against Ukraine lodged on 4 November 2016 communicated on 3 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawfully delayed processing of his pension documents by his former employer, a department within the structure of the Ministry of Interior, that was established by the judgment of the Kyiv District Administrative Court of 1   March 2011 ultimately upheld by the final decision of the Higher Administrative Court of 26   September 2012 (the first set of proceedings). According to the report of 6   August 2014, a court-appointed expert concluded that the applicant had suffered moral damage because of the department’s unlawful inaction. The applicant’s initial compensation claim that he introduced, relying on Article   1173 of the Civil Code guaranteeing compensation for unlawful action or inaction of the State bodies, in January 2013 against the department was dismissed by the final decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 23   April 2013 for the reason that it had to be directed against the State and the State Treasury had to be involved in the proceedings as a defendant (the second set of proceedings). The applicant’s subsequent claim introduced in July 2013 against the State, the State Treasury having been designated as the defendant and the department as a third party, was dismissed by the final decision of the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Cases of 16   March 2016 essentially for the reasons that the applicant had not proven that the State Treasury had caused any damage to him and that he had lodged no claim against the Ministry of Interior responsible for the claimed damage (the third set of proceedings). The latter decision was sent to the applicant on 10   May 2016. Relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the court decisions in the second and third sets of proceedings were contradictory and were not based on clear and foreseeable legal norms. The decisions in the third set of proceedings allegedly lacked reasons and placed a disproportionate restriction on his right of access to a court and his right to effectively pursue his action before the courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that his compensation claim was dismissed in the proceedings terminated by the final decision of the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Cases of 16   March 2016 (see, for instance,   Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria , no.   17868/07, §§   35-43, 27   March 2008; Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v.   Romani a , no. 9718/03, §§ 72-76, 26 July 2011; and, mutatis mutandis , Plechanow v. Poland , no.   22279/04, § 109, 7   July 2009)? Were the relevant court decisions based on clear and foreseeable interpretation of the applicable legal provisions? Did the applicant have to bear the burden of the consequences of any uncertainty regarding the State body against which his compensation claim had to be directed?