CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 February 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 35931/19 Tamara Aleksandrovna NEKRASOVA against Ukraine lodged on 2 July 2019 communicated on 16 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who at the material time was detained pending criminal proceedings against her, instituted civil proceedings in the Chervonozavodskyy District Court in Kharkiv (first-instance court) against a private person mainly challenging the validity of a loan contract. Despite her requests to be allowed to personally take part in the hearing before that court including via videoconference, the case was heard and decided in her absence on 4   December 2017. The applicant’s claims were dismissed as unfounded. On 30   July 2018 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. On 8   January   2019 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law for her failure to pay a court fee of 2,560   Ukrainian hryvnias (the equivalent of approximately 80   euros at the material time). The Supreme Court refused to grant the applicant’s request to defer the payment of that fee based on her lack of funds, in support of which she submitted the detention facility’s letter attesting that she had had no income and had been the recipient of the State’s “full financial maintenance”. In that regard, the Supreme Court held that the applicant had failed to provide any acceptable reasons and evidence for her request in line with section 8 of the Court Fee Act. Relying mainly on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of unfair conduct of the first-instance court proceedings and of lack of access to the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, regard being had to her alleged inability to personally appear before the Chervonozavodskyy District Court in Kharkiv (compare Pönkä v.   Estonia , no.   64160/11, §§   30-40, 8   November   2016, and Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan (no.   2) , no. 5386/10, §§ 85-102, 24 March 2022)?   2.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that her cassation appeal was not examined on the merits for her failure to pay a court fee (compare Kreuz v.   Poland , no.   28249/95, §§   52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI; Malahov v.   Moldova , no.   32268/02, §§   31-36, 7   June 2007; Ciorap v.   Moldova , no.   12066/02, §§   93-96, 19   June   2007; and Mushta v.   Ukraine , no.   8863/06, §§   40-47, 18   November 2010)?