FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5067/18 Sergey Gennadyevich KOZLOV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 January 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen , President, Ganna Yudkivska , Mattias Guyomar , judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 January 2018,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Sergey Gennadyevich Kozlov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Sevastopol.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . In July 2013 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Joint ‑ Stock Company State Savings Bank of Ukraine ( Ощадбанк ), claiming certain amounts in connection with contractual relations which had existed in 1993 between the bank and the applicant ’ s mother who had died in 2009.

4 . On 23 October 2013 the Sevastopol Nakhimovsky District Court issued a decision rejecting those claims in part as res judicata and discontinuing proceedings in that respect and a judgment rejecting the remainder of the claims as unfounded on the merits. The court reasoned that the applicant ’ s claims had already been resolved by a final decision of the Sevastopol Court of Appeal of 20 December 2007.

5 . At the hearing on 23 October 2013 the first-instance court read out only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment and delivered its full reasoned judgment in writing on 30 October 2013.

6 . On 21 November and 25 December 2013 respectively the Sevastopol Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision and judgment.

7 . The applicant appealed on points of law to the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the High Specialised Court”).

8 . On 17 January and 24 February 2014 a High Specialised Court judge ruled to initiate proceedings for review on points of law (in cassation) in respect of the judgment and in respect of the discontinuation decision respectively and requested the case file from the first-instance court.

9 . The first of the High Specialised Court rulings was delivered to the first-instance court on 26 March 2014. Due to the events described in Fasolko and Matych v. Ukraine ( dec. ), nos. 30256/15 and 59524/15, § 14, 21 January 2021 ), which had occurred in the meantime, the case file in the applicant ’ s case has never been sent to the High Specialised Court. The case file is still in the courthouse in Sevastopol.

10 . The applicant alleges that his appeal on points of law has not yet been examined and that on 30 June 2014 he wrote to the High Specialised Court president asking him to take action to ensure the examination of his case. The applicant alleges that he received no response.

11 . The procedure for restoration of lost case files is set out in Articles 488 to 495 of the Code. Any party to the proceedings can apply for restoration of a lost case file in a case which ended in a judgment or in a case where proceedings were discontinued. Proceedings can also be initiated by a court proprio motu (Articles 488 and 489). Applications are examined by the first-instance court which examined the case (Article 490). Persons applying for restoration must provide detailed information as to the specific material which was in the file, the names and addresses of the parties to the proceedings, the possible location of the lost material and the circumstances in which it was lost, and to furnish to the court all documentation available to the person asking for restoration (Article 491). Under Article 493, the court can examine as witnesses persons who took part in the examination of the case (including judges), search electronic records and take other steps to gather the relevant information. On the basis of the information and documentation so collected, the court may either deem the file restored in its entirety or in part or, if the court finds the information available insufficient, discontinue the proceedings and explain to the parties their right to reapply if relevant documentation becomes available (Article 494).

12 . The Law concerns the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, which it defines as territory temporarily occupied by Russia (sections 2 and 3). Section 12 reassigns jurisdiction over cases which would normally fall within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol to courts in Kyiv designated by the Kyiv Court of Appel.

COMPLAINTS

13 . The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the full judgment in his case had not been pronounced publicly, that the Court of Appeal had failed adequately to respond to the arguments he had raised in his appeal and that the High Specialised Court failed to examine his appeals on points of law. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained about the outcome of proceedings and the courts ’ refusal to allow his claims. Under Article 13 he complained that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of his other complaints.

THE LAW

14 . The Court observes that it is open to the applicant to request reassignment of jurisdiction over his case to a court in Kyiv under the Law No. 1207-VII of 15 April 2014 and then apply to that court for restoration of the case-file material (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above).

15 . There is no indication, and the applicant does not argue, that this procedure would be inaccessible or impractical in the applicant ’ s case: the matter involved was a matter of law and the applicant, who continues to reside in Sevastopol, does not allege that he has no copies of the relevant material in his possession or that they are inaccessible to him (contrast Khlebik v. Ukraine , no. 2945/16, § 75, 25 July 2017).

16 . It follows that the applicant has failed to use an effective domestic remedy available to him and that the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2021 . 1} {signature_p_2}

Martina Keller Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen Deputy Registrar President