CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2025

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 2 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52902/18 LG ELEKTRONICS UKRAINE against Ukraine lodged on 7 November 2018 communicated on 13 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case mainly concerns an issue of a “tribunal established by law” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, a defendant company sought, before the Kyiv Court of Appeal, to set aside an arbitration award issued in the applicant company’s favour by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce in Kyiv on 15   November 2016. The applicant company mainly complains that the Kyiv Court of Appeal overstepped limits of its jurisdiction when examining a ground for setting aside the arbitration award, which the defendant company had failed to previously raise before the arbitration tribunal and a first-instance court. In particular, the defendant company claimed, for the first time, before the appellate court that the arbitration tribunal had had no jurisdiction to examine the case owing to the alleged invalidity of an additional agreement which contained an arbitration clause. On 10 August 2017 the Kyiv Court of Appeal, having examined the issue of whether the additional agreement had been concluded in accordance with the applicable provisions of Ukrainian law, found the agreement to be void. It held that the arbitration tribunal had had no jurisdiction to examine the case and set aside the arbitration award. On 9 November 2017 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Commercial Matters upheld the decision of the appellate court. The applicant’s request to have the decision of the Higher Specialised Court reviewed based on the divergent application of domestic law was rejected as unfounded by the Supreme Court on 8 May 2018. The applicant company also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the application for review to the Supreme Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?   2.     Has the applicant company complied with the six-months’ time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations by a tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, with respect to the proceedings before the Kyiv Court of Appeal? In particular, did the Kyiv Court of Appeal have competence under the domestic law to make an assessment of the issue of validity of the arbitration clause and the additional contract to the surety contract, which issues had not been previously raised by the defendant company before the arbitration tribunal and the first-instance court (see   Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no.   26374/18, §§ 243-52, 1   December 2020; Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine , no. 1006/07, § 44 and 45, 5 October 2017; Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine , nos.   29458/04 and   29465/04 , §§ 24-28, 20 July 2006)?   4.     In respect of the remainder of the applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, do they disclose a violation of these provisions, as alleged by the applicant company?