CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 25 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15922/16 Mariya Vasylivna PAPUNOVA against Ukraine lodged on 15 March 2016 communicated on 5 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment on the return to the applicant of certain goods retained by the Ukrainian tax authorities located in the Crimean Peninsula. By judgment of 31 January 2013 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol ordered the Sevastopol Tax Service to return previously confiscated items worth UAH 50,821.16 (approximately EUR   4,700 at the time) to the applicant. The ensuing enforcement proceedings did not produce a result and were terminated in 2014 when the Ukrainian authorities could no longer function in the Crimean Peninsula. In May 2015 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Pecherskyy District court of Kyiv seeking to change the mode of enforcement of the judgment of 2013 into a monetary award, but her claim was refused as that would have essentially changed the nature of her initial claims and the subject matter of case (final ruling by the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of 25 September 2017). The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the impossibility to obtain enforcement of the final and binding judgment of 2013 delivered in her favour. The applicant died in 2017 and her case was pursued by her son, both at the domestic level and before the Court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Does the impossibility to obtain enforcement of the final and binding judgment given in the applicant’s favour disclose, in the circumstances, a breach of her right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?