Published on 8 November 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9783/13 Mykola Viktorovych BAKIN against Ukraine lodged on 18 January 2013 communicated on 11 October 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The judgment of the Zhovtnevyy Court in Zaporizhzhya of 2 August 2007 ordering the Zaporizhzhya Regional Military Commissariat to pay the applicant 47,345.24 Ukrainian hryvnias (the equivalent of around 7,000 euros at the material time) of pension arrears was not appealed against, became final and was enforced in full.

By decision of 11 June 2008, the same court reopened the proceedings in the light of “newly discovered circumstances” upon the respondent’s request on the grounds of the lack of authority of its representative in the main set of proceedings and his failure to point to the relevant legal issues at that time. On 1 August 2008 it quashed the judgment of 2 August 2007, ordered the return of the awarded sum and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the matter was to be heard in the framework of administrative proceedings. The applicant’s appeals were finally rejected by the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters on 7 November 2012.

The applicant complained that the reopening of the proceedings and the quashing of the judgment favourable to him were contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

By letter dated 3 September 2021, the applicant’s son, Mr Vitaliy Bakin, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 7 April 2021 and that he wished to pursue this application on his late father’s behalf.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does Mr Vitaliy Bakin, the applicant’s son, have standing to pursue this application on the applicant’s behalf (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014)?

2. Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the reopening of the proceedings in the case and the quashing of the judgment of the Zhovtnevyy Court in Zaporizhzhya of 2 August 2007 (see Lizanets v. Ukraine , no. 6725/03, § 34, 31 May 2007; Ponomaryov v. Ukraine , no. 3236/03, §§ 41-42, 3 April 2008; and Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, §§ 50-54, 29 October 2015)?

3. Was there an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the reopening of the proceedings in his case and the quashing of the Zhovtnevyy Court in Zaporizhzhya of 2 August 2007? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ponomaryov , cited above, §§ 46-47)?