CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 mars 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 84 March 2006 Melnyk v. Ukraine - 23436/03 Judgment 28.3.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal to admit a cassation appeal following the entry into force of a new time-limit for the lodging of such appeals: violation   Facts : The applicant instituted proceedings in the Local Court against her former employer to be reinstated in her position and to receive compensation. The proceedings were discontinued because of the failure of the applicant to appear before the court. On 27 February 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the above ruling discontinuing the proceedings. On 26 April 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation. The Local Court rejected the applicant’s request for a cassation appeal as it had been submitted too late. The court relied on the amended Code of Civil Procedure – which had entered into force on 4 April 2002 – and provided that the time-limit for lodging a cassation application against the decision of an appellate court was one month (under the old provisions the time-limit was three months from the date of the appellate decision). The applicant’s subsequent appeals were dismissed. The applicant complained to the Court about the discontinuation of her labour dispute and the refusal to admit her cassation appeal, which had deprived her of access to the court. Law : Article   6 (access to court) – The right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, provided the latter pursue a legitimate aim and are proportional. Rules on time-limits for appeals are undoubtedly designed to ensure legal certainty, but they should not prevent litigants from making use of an available remedy. The applicant’s request to lodge an appeal was declared inadmissible on the ground that it had not been filed within the time-limit provided by the amended Code of Civil Procedure. Firstly, the Court had to examine whether the calculation of the period for the running of the time-limit could be regarded as foreseeable from the point of view of the applicant. In the absence of any transitional or retroactive provision, the applicant could reasonably have expected the new deadline to have been brought forward to 4 May 2002 (that is, one month after the amendment had come into force). The grounds on which the applicant’s request for a cassation appeal were rejected suggests that the provisions of the amended Code of Civil Procedure were to be applied retroactively in the applicant’s case, requiring her to have lodged the cassation appeal by 27 March 2002, that is, within one month from the date of the appellate decision, and even before the Amendment Law had come into force. Whilst in principle retrospective civil legislation is not expressly prohibited by the Convention, in the event that as a result thereof a person would be deprived of having access to an effective remedy (as in the present case), such retroactive application would undermine the principle of legal certainty. The essence of the procedural changes in the present case was to speed up civil proceedings and accordingly reduce their overall length. Nevertheless, despite such a legitimate aim, the dismissal of the applicant’s cassation appeal was not proportionate to the purpose of these procedural changes. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court awarded the applicant 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes