CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 30 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77302/16 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych VASYLKIV against Ukraine lodged on 6 December 2016 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms by an appellate court in civil proceedings, initiated by the applicant against Sh., his daughter. The applicant sought to declare that Sh. had lost her right to live as a co-tenant in a flat owned by a local communal company, on the basis of her absence from there for a period extending six months. On 14 March 2014 the Peremyshlyanskyi District Court of Lviv Region allowed the applicant’s claim. On 30 June 2015 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal held a hearing in the applicant’s absence, but in Sh.’ presence. According to the applicant, the summons was not sent to him, and he did not receive it, although he lives at his home address. The appellate court found the reasons for Sh.’s absence to be compelling, quashed the decision of the first-instance court and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 25 May 2016 the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld the decision of the appellate court. The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the principle of equality of arms had been breached, as he was not notified of the appeal proceedings and was not present at the hearing of 30 June 2015.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected, given that the hearing of 30 June 2015 before the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal was held in his absence?