CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9771/19 Sergiy Mykolayovych GONCHARENKO against Ukraine lodged on 8 February 2019 communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a denial of access to the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a claim challenging his dismissal from a municipal company and seeking salary arrears. On 5 October 2016 a district court allowed the claim in part. On 20 December 2016 a court of appeal reduced the amount of salary arrears awarded to him. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation challenging those decisions. On 10 February 2017, while the cassation proceedings were pending, the district court opened proceedings upon the defendant company’s petition for review of the 2016 district court’s judgment, in view of “newly discovered circumstances” (“NDC review”). On 11 July 2018 the Supreme Court discontinued the cassation proceedings considering that the district court’s judgment was no longer appealable against since it was in the process of NDC review. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 August 2018. In 2019 the defendant company sought to withdraw its petition for NDC review since they had already complied with the 2016 court decisions and had no interest in review. In 2020 the district court discontinued the NDC review proceedings considering that there was no longer any dispute between the parties, but on 21 July 2020 the court of appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the latter discontinuation decision, as well as the 2017 district court decision to open the NDC review proceedings. On 19 August and 28 September 2020, the applicant lodged two new appeals in cassation against the 2016 court decisions and requested an extension of the (20-day) time-limit for appeal. He cited the decision of the court of appeal of 21 July 2020 (which, for him, meant that there were no longer active pending NDC review proceedings, thus removing the grounds for the 2018 Supreme Court decision) as the reason for appealing in cassation out of time. On 2 September and 23 October 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the new appeals as belated and refused leave to appeal out of time. It pointed out that, under the domestic law, no extension of time-limit for appeal could be granted more than one year after the date of delivery of the decision appealed against (unless the appellant had no knowledge of that decision or was prevented from appealing by force majeure circumstances beyond his or her control). On 21 December 2020 the district court rejected the defendant company’s application for NDC review on the grounds that the circumstances cited in its application as “newly discovered” (namely the fact that the applicant was working another job and drawing income for part of the period for which salary arrears had been ordered), were irrelevant for calculation of salary arrears under the domestic law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to the Supreme Court, for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that his appeals in cassation against the decisions of 5 October and 20 December 2016 were not examined and rejected by the Supreme Court decisions of 11 July 2018 and 2   September and 23 October 2020?