FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 4831/09 Iryna Mykolayivna GORODNYK against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (F ourt h Section), sitting on 21 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus KÅ«ris, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registra r ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2008,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Iryna Mykolayivna Gorodnyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Stryy, Lviv Region, Ukraine.

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

The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Domestic proceedings

4 . On 16 February 1999 a gas explosion occurred in the multi-apartment building, where the applicant had an apartment.

5 . On 1 December 2000 the Drogobytskyy District Court of Lviv Region convicted the employee of a gas utility company, JSC “Lvivgas”, of negligence (improper fulfilment of her duties) resulting in heavy consequences.

6 . On 16 March 2000 the applicant lodged a claim against JSC “Lvivgas” for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

7 . On 25 February and 24 July 2008 the Drogobytskyy District Court of Lviv Region and the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, respectively, partly allowed the applicant ’ s claims.

8 . On 1 April 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first ‑ instance court.

9 . On 8 June 2010 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court of 11 February 2010, which partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim.

10 . On 13 July 2010 the execution writ was issued for compensation of pecuniary damage in the amount of UAH 4,185 (equivalent of approximately EUR 400 at the material time) and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of UAH 35,000 (equivalent of approximately EUR 3,200).

2. Proceedings before the Court

11 . On 27 December 2008 the applicant lodged her application with the Court complaining about the length of the civil proceedings and non ‑ enforcement of the decision of the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal of 24 July 2008.

12 . There was no correspondence from the applicant since between 17 August 2009 and 11 April 2016.

13 . On 22 March 2016 the Court sent the applicant a letter requesting her to inform it about her intention to pursue her application and about any new developments in the case.

14 . On 21 April 2016 the applicant replied and confirmed her intention to pursue the application. The applicant did not provide any information concerning the court proceedings in Ukraine.

15 . On 26 May 2016 the Court communicated to the Ukrainian Government the part of the application concerning the length of the civil proceedings according to the well-established case-law (WECL) procedure and declared the other complaint inadmissible. Based on the documents submitted by the applicant the WECL communication letter contained the information that the civil proceedings had started on 16 March 2000 and were still pending.

16 . On 1 July 2016 the applicant signed the friendly settlement declaration.

17 . On 15 March 2016 the Government provided their observations. In their observations they noted that the civil proceedings had ended on 8 June 2010 by the decision of the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, which was not appealed against in cassation and, thus, became final. The Government submitted the court certificate in support of this statement. Having regard to the applicant ’ s failure to inform the Court about this new fact, they considered that the applicant abused her right of petition and suggested to declare her application inadmissible.

18 . The Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant for comments.

19 . On 17 November 2016 the applicant responded to the Government ’ s observations stating that, indeed, the proceedings had ended on 8 June 2010 at the second instance. She did not explain why on two previous occasions she had failed to inform the Court about the termination of the proceedings, but asked not to take into account the Government ’ s observations concerning the abuse of application.

COMPLAINT

20 . The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

21 . The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. They pointed out that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the civil proceedings had ended on 8 June 2010.

22 . The applicant asked the Court not to take into consideration the Government ’ s observations failing, though, to explain why she had omitted to inform the Court about the date of termination of the proceedings.

23 . The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. The application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Predescu v. Romania , no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Hadrabová and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007; Červeňáková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 26852/09, §§ 25-26, 23 October 2012).

24 . In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant failed to inform the Court about the termination date of the court proceedings despite the letter of 22 March 2016 requesting her, inter alia , to inform the Court of any developments in her case and the WECL communication letter of 26 May 2016 indicating the length of the proceedings. The applicant ’ s silence on the said issue cannot be interpreted, in the Court ’ s view, as anything else but a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the application. Neither does t he Court find that the applicant convincingly and plausibly explained in her observations why she had not informed the Court about this important information.

25 . Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, it appears the applicant ’ s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention; thus, it is appropriate to reject the application as a whole as an abuse of the right of application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 March 2017 .

Andrea Tamietti Vincent A. De Gaetano              Deputy Registrar President