CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 48 December 2002 Kozak v. Ukraine (dec.) - 21291/02 Decision 17.12.2002 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-3-a Ratione temporis Recourse to new cassation procedure not reviving impugned decision of 1986: inadmissible In 1986, the applicant’s local authority instituted proceedings for the withdrawal of the applicant’s title to a plot of land and the house built upon it without authorisation. The District Court granted the order sought. In 1998, the applicant requested the Regional Court to initiate supervisory review proceedings and to seek annulment of the 1986 decision on the ground that she, as owner, had not participated in those proceedings. The applicant’s request was rejected, leading her to request supervisory review of her case from the Supreme Court in February 1999. The following month, the Supreme Court ordered the Regional Court to review the applicant’s complaints and to inform her of the outcome. This did not take place because the case-file had been destroyed. In February 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court to have the case-file reconstructed. When this was done, she applied to the Regional Court to annul the 1986 decision. On 30 May 2001, the Regional Court rejected her application. In September 2001, the applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court in accordance with the procedure established by the Law of 21 June 2001 on the Introduction of Changes to the Code of Civil Procedure. Her application was rejected by a panel of three judges in December 2001. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant complains of events that took place more than 10 years before the Convention entered into force for Ukraine: incompatible ratione temporis . Inadmissible under Article 6: As to the requests to have the 1986 decision reviewed, this was in effect a request to reopen proceedings, which is not a right guaranteed by the Convention: incompatible ratione materiae . As for the right to a court, the application to the Supreme Court in September 2001 and its rejection in December 2001 did not revive the 1986 decision: incompatible ratione temporis .   © 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