FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF TSEZAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 73590/14, 73593/14, 73820/14, 4635/15, 5200/15, 5206/15 and 7289/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 February 2018

FINAL

02/07/2018

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Tsezar and O thers v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Faris Vehabović, Iulia Motoc, Carlo Ranzoni, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 23 January 2018 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in seven applications (nos. 73590/14, 73593/14, 73820/14, 4635/15, 5200/15, 5206/15 and 7289/15) against Ukraine , lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Ukrainian nationals , Ms Lyubov Nikolayevna Tsezar (“the first applicant”), Mr Nikolay Vladimirovich Tsezar (“the second applicant”), Ms Svetlana Pavlovna Karlyuk (“the third applicant”), Ms Kateryna Andrianivna Vanina (“the fourth applicant”), Ms Tetyana Kostyantynivna Chernovol (“the fifth applicant”), Ms Tetyana Anatoliyivna Vysla (“the sixth applicant”) and Mr Anatoliy Leonidovych Vyslyy (“the seventh applicant”). The first three applicants lodged their applications on 10 November 2014 . The o ther applicants lodged their applications on 14 January 2015. The applicants were granted leave to present their own cases under Rule 36 § 2 in fine of the Rules of the Court.

2 . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna from the Ministry of Justice.

3 . The applicants alleged that the Ukrainian authorities had unlawfully and disproportionately suspended pensions and other socia l benefits (“social benefits”) due to them in the city of Donetsk, territory the G overnment do not currently control. They also alleged that , as a result of the relocation of the courts from Eastern Ukraine , they could not bring any claims before the courts. Lastly , the first three applicants alleged that they had been discriminated against based on their place of residence .

4 . On 15 July 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5 . The applicants were born in 1954, 1952, 1964, 1926, 1952, 1960 and 1956 respectively and live in Donetsk.

A. B ackground to the case

7 . In response, on 14 April 2014 the G overnment , who consider the armed groups to be terrorist organisations, authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an “anti-terrorist operation”.

8 . I n June 2014 the armed groups started to seize offices of the National Bank of Ukraine and other regional financial institutions in the Donetsk and Lu h ansk regions.

9 . On 24 July 2014 the Ukrainian p ostal s ervice Ukrposhta suspended its operation s on the territories of the Donetsk and Lu h ans k r egions that were out side the control of the Government , because of frequent attacks on its vehicles and employees by armed groups .

10 . On 6 August 2014 the National Bank of Ukraine suspended all financial transactions o n the territories out side the control of the G overnment (see paragraph 20 below ).

12 . On 2 September 2014, f ollowing changes in the law , jurisdiction of the courts in the non- controlled areas was transferred to the relevant courts in the neighbouring regions on the territory controlled by the G overnment (see paragraphs 34 to 36 below ).

13 . On 11 November 2014 all social benefit payments in the settlements of the Donetsk and Luhansk r egions that were out side the control of the G overnment were suspended ( see paragraph 26 below )

B . P articular circumstances of the applicants

15 . The applicants were registered as recipients of social benefits with different d epartments of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Donetsk . Some applicants had been receiv ing their social benefits until 30 June 2014 , others until 31 August 2014 .

16 . On 16 June 2015 the first and second applicant s registered themselves with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Krasnoarmiysk District of the Donetsk r egion (currently the city of Pokrovsk), controlled by the G overnment . On th e same day their social benefits was reinstated , including social benefits due to them for the period 1 July 2014 to 16 June 2015.

17 . The sixth applicant was registered with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Obolonskiy District in Kyiv on 9 September 2015. However, she did not apply for reinstatement of her social benefits.

18 . The o ther applicants did not apply to the relevant social authorities on the territory controlled by the G overnment for reinstatement of their social benefits.

19 . According to the Government, the sixth and seventh applicants travelled from Donetsk to the territory controlled by the G overnment after their social benefits had been suspended. T he Government provided a certificate from the State Customs Office stating that the sixth and seventh applicants had entered the territory controlled by the G overnment on 31 October 2015, through an authorised checkpoint near the frontline between Ukrainian forces and “ DPR ” armed groups in the town of Zaitseve.

I I . RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. S ocial benefit payment s on the territory not controlled by the State authorities

1. Resolution no. 466 of the Board of the National Bank of Ukraine of 6 August 2014 “ on the suspension of financial transaction s ”

2 . Law of Ukraine of 20 October 2014 “ on e nsuring the r ights and freedoms of internally displaced persons ”

21 . Section 1 (1) , before the amendments of 24 December 2015, read as follows:

“An internally displaced person is a citizen of Ukraine who permanently resides in Ukraine, [and] who was forced or who voluntarily left his or her place of residence as a result or in order to avoid the negative consequences of the armed conflict, temporary occupation, widespread manifestation of violence, large - scale violations of human rights and emergency situations of natural disaster or anthropogenic hazards.”

22 . Section 7 (2) reads as follows:

“ Ukraine takes all possible measures aimed at resolving issues related to the social protection of persons, including reinstatement of social benefits to internally displaced persons. ”

23 . Section 7 (3) reads as follows:

“ Elderly citizen s , disabled people , disabled children and any other person s in difficulty who are registered as internally displaced person s are entitled to receive social benefits in accordance with the law currently in force at the place of registration of their actual place of residence. ”

24 . The procedure for preparing and issuing certificates of registration as an internally displaced person was established by Resolution no. 509 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 1 October 2014 “On the r egistration of p ersons displaced from the t emporarily o ccupied t erritory of Ukraine and anti-terrorist operation area ” (after relevant amendments “ o n the r egistration of i nternally d isplaced p ersons”).

3 . Resolution no. 637 of the Cabin et of Ministers of Ukraine of 5 November 2014 “ o n welfare p ayments to p ersons displaced from the t emporarily o ccupied t erritory of Ukraine and anti-terrorist operation a rea (after relevant amendments “ on w elfare payments to i nternally d isplaced p ersons”)

4 . Resolution no. 595 of the Cabin et of Ministers of Ukraine of 7 November 2014 “ o n i ssues of financing p ublicly f unded institutions , paying s ocial benefits and p roviding f inancial s upport to certain e nterprises and o rganisations in the Donetsk and Lu h ansk r egions”

26 . Section 3 reads as follows:

“ T he Ministries and other State authorities shall, by 1 December 2014 , ensure that publicly funded institutions , enterprises and organi s ations under their control are relocated from territor y out side the control of the State authorities to settl e ments where the State authorities exercise their powers in full. ”

27 . Th e resolution approved a n Interim Order “ o n f inancing publicly funded institutions , p aying social b enefits and providing f inancial s upport to certain e nterprises and o rgani s ations in the Donetsk and Luhansk r egions ” .

28 . Section 2 reads as follows:

“ In the settl e ments of the Donetsk and Luhansk r egions, where the State authorities do not exercise their powers in full , payments from the State Budget, the Pension Fund of Ukraine and other compulsory S tate social insurance funds will only be conducted after the State authorities regain control over th o se territories.

5 . Resolution no. 1085-p of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 7 November 2014 “ approving the l ist of settlements on the territory t emporarily o ut side the c ontrol of the State a uthorities or w here the State a uthorities d o n o t e xercise t heir p owers in f ull ”

30 . The resolution defined the areas which are temporarily outside the control of the G overnment , and includes the city of Donetsk.

B. Jurisdiction of administrative courts and s ubject-matter jurisdiction over administrative cases

31 . A rticle 17 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine provides that a dministrative courts have jurisdiction over claims by individuals or legal entities against public authorities regarding their decisions ( regulations or individual legal acts), actions or omissions.

32 . A rticle 18 § 1 (4) of the same Code provides that local courts of general jurisdiction have jurisdiction over claims by individuals against public authorities regarding the calculation, recalculation and payment of social benefits.

33 . A rticle 18 § 2 (1) provides that r egional a dministrative c ourts have jurisdiction over all claims by individuals or legal entities against public authorities except in the particular cases specified in the C ode.

C. Relocation of courts from the territory not controlled by the G overnment

1. Law of Ukraine of 12 August 2014 “ on the administration of j ustice and c riminal p roceedings in c onnection with the anti - terrorist operation ”

34 . Under Article 1, the territorial jurisdiction of court cases within the competence of the courts located in the area of the a nti- t errorist o peration was changed. The relevant higher specialised courts of Ukra i ne were authorised to designate the courts that would have jurisdiction over cases which would normally have been examined by courts located in the area where the anti-terrorist operation was being conducted, but which were prevented from operating.

2. Order no. 193 of the High er Administrative Court of Ukraine of 2 September 2014 “ on e nsuring the c onsideration of a dministrative c ases within the competence of the a dministrative c ourts l ocated in the a nti- t errorist o peration area ”

35 . Section 1 provided that administrative cases within the competence of administrative courts located in the area out side the control of the G overnment , were to be considered by the following courts:

- Zaporizh zh ia Regional Administrative Court – administrative cases within the competence of the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court;

- Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal – administrative cases subject to review by the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court.

3. Order no. 2710/38-14 of the High er Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases “ o n e stablish ing t erritorial j urisdiction of the c ourts ’ c ases” with subsequent amendments

36 . The order provided that a dministrative cases within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction located in the c ity of Donetsk were to be considered by certain courts located on the territory controlled by the G overnment .

4 . Order no. 262 of the High er Administrative Court of Ukraine of 15 December 2014 “ o n relocating the o peration s of the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court”

37 . Section 1 provided that the operation s of the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court were to be relocated to the city of Sloviansk, territory controlled by the G overnment , as of 22 December 2014.

5 . Order no. 252 of the Head of the High er Administrative Court of Ukraine of 1 December 2014 a mending Order no. 193 of the Head of the High er Administrative Court of Ukraine of 2 September 2014 “ o n e nsuring the consideration of administrative cases within the competence of the administrative courts located in the anti - terrorist operation area ” (see paragraph 35 above)

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

39 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court) .

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

40 . The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they could not challenge the suspension of their social benefits before the courts, since the latter had been removed from the area s of hostilities.

41 . The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the f acts of the case (see, amongst many other authorities, Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I) , finds that these complaint s fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in the present case should be viewed as a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 ( see, mutatis mutandis , Frida, LLC v. Ukraine , no. 24003/07, § 24 , 8 December 2016 ).

42 . Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant :

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

A. Admissibility

43 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties ’ submissions

44 . The Government confirmed that the domestic courts had been inoperative in the c ity of Donetsk since August 2014. The y stated that representatives of the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” had posed a threat to judges, representatives of law-enforcement bodies and citizens in need of judicial protection in the area out side the control of the G overnment . Therefore, after amendments to the law (see paragraph 34 above) , the courts had been removed from the areas of hostilities and were operating in the neighbouring regions.

45 . The Government also submitted that the applicants had had an opportunity to travel to the territory controlled by the G overnment . In particular, the first , second and sixth applicant s ha d been registered with the social insurance authorities on the territory controlled by the G overnment (see paragraph s 16 and 17 above). The sixth and seventh applicant s had officially entered the territory controlled by the G overnment on 31 October 2015 (see paragraph 19 above). Given the above, the Government stated that the applicants had had access to the courts on the territory controlled by the G overnment and so could have brought claims before the courts had they wished to do so.

46 . The applicants disagreed. The first applicant submitted that she had been un able to travel to the courts located on the territory controlled by the G overnment , because of health problems and a lack of funds . She provided medical certificates issued by a n institution in the so-called “DPR” dated 26 September 2015 and 12 April 2016, confirming that she suffered from dyscirculatory encephalopathy ( grade 2) , cephalalgia (headaches) and asthenia (weakness) . The other applicants submitted similar arguments with out specif ying their health problems. The applicants also submitted that the State had not provide d unobstructed entry to the territory and had not guarantee d them their safety during the trips there.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

47 . The Court notes at the outset that the impossibility, for the tribunals located in the city where the applicants reside, to adjudicate their claims is a result of the hostilities in the areas the Government do not control.

48 . Therefore, there is no question that the authorities of the respondent State have intentionally “restricted” or “limited” the exercise of the applicants ’ right of access to court (contrast, for example, Omar v. France , 29 July 1998, §§ 34-44, Reports 1998-V ). The question before the Court is, rather, whether the respondent State has taken all the measures available to it to organise its judicial system in a way that would render the rights guaranteed by Article 6 effective in practice (see, mutatis mutandis , Un ión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain , 7 July 1989, § 38, Series A no. 157, and Davran v. Turkey , no. 18342/03, § 45, 3 November 2009 ), in the light of the long-established principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective, and not theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy , 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09 , § 272, ECHR 2016 ). In examining this question, the Court is conscious of the context in which the case arose, notably that of the hostilities in the region , and notes that it would be artificial to examine the facts of the case without considering that general context (see Khlebik v. Ukraine , no. 2945/16 , § 71, 25 July 2017, with further reference ) .

49 . The Court reiterates that, under its case-law, Article 6 § 1 embodies the “right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see Golder v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18 ). For the right of access to be effective, an individual must have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his or her rights (see Bellet v. France , 4 December 1995, § 36 , Series A no. 333 - B , and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 86, ECHR 2016 (extracts) ).

50 . The Court observes that , as of at least August 2014 , the courts in Donetsk were inoperative, which is not in dispute between the parties (see paragraph 44 above) . Accordingly, from that time onwards the applicants were unable to file claims with the courts located in the city of Donetsk, which clearly constituted a limitation on their right of access to a court.

51 . The Court reiterates that t he right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom , 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06 , § 230, ECHR 2012). In laying down such regulation, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Whilst the final decision as to observance of the Convention ’ s requirements rests with the Court, it is no part of the Court ’ s function to substitute for the assessment of the national authorities any other assessment of what might be the best policy in this field. Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) , no. 40877/98 , § 54, ECHR 2003-I, and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others , cited above, § 89) .

52 . The Court acknowledges that the State authorities might sometimes experience certain difficulties in ensuring the proper functioning of the judicial system in certain regions in view of ongoing hostilities in th o se regions. Nevertheless, in the Court ’ s view, the State authorities are expected to take certain steps to resolve the problem by, for instance, specifically authorising claims to be filed in courts in another region of the State (see , mutatis mutandis , Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 156 , 15 November 2007 ).

53 . The Court observes that in the present case the State introduced amendments to the law first authori s ing courts in the neighbouring regions to consider cases which would have otherwise been considered by courts on t he territory not controlled by the G overnment and later relocating the operation s of the relevant courts on the territory controlled by the G overnment (see paragraphs 34 to 38 above) . In particular, in September 2014 – two or four months before the present applications were lodged before the Court – the courts located on the territory controlled by the G overnment would have already had jurisdiction over the applicants ’ administrative cases , if lodged .

54 . The Court notes that the re is no evidence to support the applicant ’ s allegations that their personal situations precluded them from travelling to the territory where the relevant courts were situated to file claims or authorising a representative to do so. In fact , it appears from the documents provided by the parties that four of the applicants were able to travel to the territory controlled by the G overnment after the courts had been relocated (see paragraphs 16 , 17 and 19 above ). This was, in particular, also the case of the first applicant, who, notwithstanding her h ealth problems (see paragraph 46 above), was able to register herself with the Labour and Social Security Department of the Krasnoarmiysk District of the Donetsk region (see paragraph 16 above).

56 . There has, accordingly, been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II I . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

57 . The applicants complained that the social benefits due to them had been suspended in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention , which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A . The parties ’ submissions

1. The Government

58 . The Government confirmed that , owing to the ongoing hostilities in Eastern Ukraine , the State had had to suspend all social benefit payments on th o se territories. However, the domestic authorities had introduced new legislation allowing recipients of social benefits from the t erritories of the Donetsk or Luh ansk regions that were out side the control of the State, to apply to the relevant social insurance authorities located on the territory controlled by the G overnment for reinstatement of their social benefits .

59 . As an example of the effectiveness of the newly introduced system for pay ing social benefits, the Government pointed out that the first and second applicants had been receiving their social benefits since 1 July 2014, as they were registered with the social insurance authorities in the city of Pokrovsk (former ly Krasnoarmiysk) , territory controlled by the G overnment (see paragraph 16 above).

60 . T he Government further stated that as the first and second applicant s had availed themselves of the mechanism introduced by the domestic authorities for reinstatement of their social benefits , they could not be considered to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

61 . The Government further submitted that the other applicants had not applied to the social insurance authorities for reinstatement of their social benefits. Moreover, according to the Government, all the applicants could have challenged the suspension of their social benefits before the administrative courts located on the territory controlled by the G overnment . They therefore asserted that the applicants had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies before making their applications to the Court, contrary to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

62 . Lastly , i n the alternative, the Government contended that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

2. The applicants

63 . The applicants disagreed. They repeated that they could not travel to the territory controlled by the G overnment , because of health problems , lack of safety during the trips there and a lack of funds. Accordingly, they alleged that the domestic remedies suggested by the Government had been inaccessible.

64 . The first and second applicant s also confirmed that they had managed to have their social benefits reinstated on the territory controlled by the G overnment . H owever, they contested the Government ’ s submission that they were not victims of a violation of the Convention. They contended that the amount of social benefits they had been receiving was incorrect and that the social insurance authorities had not cover ed the expenses they had had to incur to travel to the territory controlled by the G overnment . They also submitted that in order to receive their social benefit payments , they had had to submit false information to the relevant State authorities stating that they resided on the territory controlled by the G overnment as internally displaced persons . They were in fact however still residing in Donetsk. Therefore, given that they had submitted false information, they had fear ed that their social benefits could be suspended at any time.

65 . Lastly, t he first three applicant s submitted that they had not been aware of the enactment of the Law of 12 August 2014 “ o n the administration of j ustice and c riminal proceedings in connection with the anti - terrorist operation ” ( see paragraph 34 above). They stated that the Ukrainian media had not been operatin g in Donetsk since 24 July 2014, thus they had been unable to learn of the relocation of the courts to the neighbo u ring regions.

B . The Court ’ s assessment

66 . The Court notes that, a s it appear s from the parties ’ submissions , the first two applicant s had been receiving their social benefits , including those due to them for the period 1 July 2014 to 15 June 2015 . The Court notes that, notwithstanding th is reinstatement , the applicants did not agree with the amount received and complained that they had not been reimbursed the expenses they had had to incur to travel to the territory controlled by the G overnment . They also complained about other aspects of the effectiveness of the system for pay ing social benefits (see paragraph 64 above) .

67 . However, e ven assuming that the applicants in question have retained their victim status , the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons .

68 . The Court notes that none of the applicants challenged the decision to suspend their social benefits before the domestic courts , as they considered that access to those courts was absent.

69 . The Court reiterates that the requirement that an applicant must first make use of domestic remedies before applying to the Court is an important aspect of the machinery of protection established by the Convention, which is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports 1996 - IV ). The general principles concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies are resumed in Vu č kovi ć and Others v. Serbia [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014.

70 . The Court notes that the authorities relocated all courts in areas no longer under their control to the neighbouring regions in September 2014 (see paragraph 53 above) . The Court further refers to its findings in respect of the applicants ’ complaint under Article 6 ( see paragraph 55 above) and reiterates that in the specific context in which the case arose none of the applicant s were disproportionately restricted in their right of access to a court guaranteed by that provision .

71 . Consequently , the Court concludes that by failing to raise their complaints before the domestic courts the applicant s did not provide the national authorities with an opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 of the Convention, namely the opportunity to prevent or put right Convention violations through their own legal system (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Cardot v. France , 19 March 1991, § 36, Series A no. 200 , and Vu č kovi ć and Others , cited above, § 90 ). Accordingly, the Government ’ s objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be upheld.

72 . It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention .

IV . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

73 . The first three applicants complained that they had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right of acces s to court and of their property rights on the ground s of their place of residence, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and /or with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

74 . The Government submited that the relocation of the courts from the non-controlled territory had not been discriminatory and was not aimed at restrict ing the rights of those who live d on t h o se territories . On the contrary, the aim of the relocation had been to ensur e the compliance of rights gu a ranteed by law for those who live d in the zone of the ongoing hostilities . Given the above, the Government stated that the above complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded.

75 . The Court notes that t he right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is breached when States treat differently persons in analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44 , ECHR 2000 - IV ).

76 . The Court notes from the outset that the first three applicants compare d their own position to t hose of residents of other territories of Ukraine that are under the control of the G overnment .

78 . The complaint is, consequently, manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

79 . Lastly, the first three applicant s complained , without providing any details , that the existing situation infringed thei r right to life under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, given their low standard of living.

80 . Regardless of other reasons for inadmissibility, the Court finds no reason to depart from its findings above that the applicants had at their disposal remedies which were available to them and would have been effective. Those remedies should ha ve been used prior to their applications before the Court being lodged (see paragraph 71 above).

81 . It f ollows that this part of the application s must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY ,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2 . Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3 . Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 February 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Marialena Tsirli Vincent A. De Gaetano Registrar President