FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 8821/08 Georgiy Ivanovych BAYDUZH against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev, President , Faris Vehabović , Carlo Ranzoni , judges ,

and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above a pplication lodged on 5 February 2008 ,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgiy Ivanovych Bayduzh , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk . He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Kukta , a lawyer practising in Dniprodzerzhynsk .

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent, Ms. O. Davydchuk of the Ministry of Justice .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background information

The applicant stated, without providing any documentary proof, that before 1991 he had acquired State bonds and after 1992 it was impossible to redeem them.

Also before 1991 t he applicant opened savings accounts in Soviet roubles with the Ukraine Savings Bank, which until 1992 was an integral part of the USSR Savings Bank , and deposited 27,757.75 roubles on those accounts. Under the terms of the agreements with the bank, “The State guarantee[d] that deposits [would] be repaid in full on demand ... ” . The provision was not stated as being subject to any restrictions.

Between 1991 and 1996 the applicant ’ s deposits significantly depreciated as a result of inflation.

In 1996 the Ukrainian authorities implemented a monetary reform and introduced a new currency, the Ukrainian hryvnia (UAH) .

On 21 November 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament enacted the Ukrainian Citizens ’ Deposits (State Guarantee of Reimbursement) Act (Law no. 537/96 ) which provided for indexation of the deposits placed with the Ukraine Savings Bank before 1992 and their repayment in hryvnia. Pursuant to section 3 of that Act, the applicant ’ s deposi ts were indexed at a ratio of 1 rouble to 1.05 hryvnias. His indexe d deposits thus constituted UAH 29,145.64 .

Sec tion 7 of the law established a system for the progressive repayment of the indexed deposits , based on the account holder ’ s age, the amount on deposit and other criteria. Each year the Government brings in regulations specifying the categories of account holders entitled to receive a part of their indexed deposits in the following year. Under the regulations adopted between 1997 and 2000, only disabled veterans, widows and widowers of disabled veterans, owners of certain State decorations and account holders aged 80 or over were entitled to recover a part of their indexed deposits.

In 2001, according to a decision of the Constitutional Court, account holder ’ s age was excluded from the list of criteria which could be taken into consideration when deciding which persons were entitled to receive a part of their indexed deposits.

2. First set of proceedings

On 24 July 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bagleyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the State and the President of Ukraine seeking payment of all his indexed deposits. The applicant also challenged before the court the method of indexation established by section 3 of Law no. 537/96 .

On 17 September 2007 the court, sitting in camera , rejected this claim for procedural shortcomings. The applicant received this decision on 26 September 2007 by post.

On 27 September 2007 the applicant appealed to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal. He explained that he had missed the statutory five-day time-limit for lodging his appeal because he had received the decision of 17 September 2007 only on 26 September 2007. According to a copy of the appeal available to the Court, the applicant also asked the Court of Appeal to extend the time-limit for lodging his appeal.

On 16 October 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal stating that it had been lodged out of time and the applicant had not asked for extension of the time-limit for lodging the appeal.

On 12 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal having found no irregularities in the decisions of the lower courts.

3. Second set of proceedings

In February 2008 the applicant instituted proceedings against the State, the President, the Ukraine Savings Bank and the State Treasury in the Bagleyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk seeking payment of the same index ed deposits in UAH and compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the State ’ s failure to return him his indexed deposits in full. He claimed that the State had failed to maintain the purchasing power of the sum in Soviet roubles which he had originally deposited with the bank.

On 1 June 2009 the Bagleyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk rejected the applicant ’ s claims as unsubstantiated and having no legal basis.

On 18 November 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 24 February 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated, having found no irregularities in the decisions of the lower courts.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, that the courts had rejected his claims and thus he had been denied access to court. He also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the impossibility of recovering his indexed deposits in full. The applicant alleged that his rights under Article 14 of the Convention had been violated because he, unlike persons aged over 80 years, was not entitled to receive a part of his indexed deposits. The applicant complained that the purchasing power of the sum to which he was entitled under Law no. 537/96 was much lower than that of the sum in Soviet roubles which he had originally deposited with the bank. The applicant also complained about impossibility to redeem his bonds.

THE LAW

1 In so far as the applicant complained about lack of access to court and the outcome of the proceedings, the Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

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

The Government stated that during the first set of proceedings the court of appeal had lawfully rejected the applicant ’ s appeal because it had been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit and the applicant had not asked for extension of that time-limit. They also stated that the applicant had abused his right of application because he had not informed the Court that his claims had actually been examined on the merits in the course of the second set of proceedings.

The applicant maintained his complaints.

The Court observes that the applicant informed it about both sets of proceedings, the Government ’ s objection on this account must thus be rejected. The Court further observes that while in the first set of proceedings the courts rejected the applicant ’ s claim on procedural grounds which he contested, he subsequently resubmitted the same claim and it was examined on the merits by courts at three levels of jurisdiction. In these circumstances the Court is not called upon to examine the alleged flaws in the first set of proceedings.

The Court notes that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes stated, as a court of fourth instance, in respect of the decisions taken by the domestic courts. It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law. Having regard to the materials in the case file, the Court finds that in the second set of proceedings the domestic courts examined the applicant ’ s claims and rejected them while giving sufficient reasons for their decisions, which do not appear to be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

It follows that th e present part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. In so far as the applicant complained about the purchasing power of his indexed deposits, the Court reiterates that a general obligation on States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with banking or financial institutions cannot be derived from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or any other provision of the Convention (see RudziÅ„ska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 45223/99 , ECHR 1999 ‑ VI ) .

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

3 . The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unable to recover his indexed deposits in full. He also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he, unlike persons aged over 80 years, could not receive a part of his indexed deposits. The Court notes that it had already rejected similar complaints in a number of cases against Ukraine (see Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine ( dec. ), nos. 45526/99 and foll ., ECHR 2002 ‑ VI) . It does not find any reason to depart from that finding in the present case.

The present part of the application must thus be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. The applicant complained that he could not redeem the bonds which he owned. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any evidence proving that he possessed the bonds in question. In addition, he did not raise this issue before the domestic courts.

It follows that the present part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 April 2016 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President