Communicated on 7 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 58037/12 Lyubov Mykolayivna TKACHOVA and Alyona Yuriyivna TKACHOVA against Ukraine lodged on 6 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Lyubov Mykolayivna Tkachova and Ms Alyona Yuriyivna Tkachova , are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1955 and 1988 respectively and live in Pisochyn .

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

On 25 January 2010 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the Executive Committee of the Pisochyn Village Council (“the Committee”), seeking to be provided with additional living space as victims of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster.

On 9 April 2010 the Kharkiv District Court (“the District Court”) terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the claim had to be examined by civil courts.

On 14 April 2010 the applicants accordingly lodged a civil claim.

On 19 April 2011 the District Court partly allowed it and obliged the Committee to provide the applicants with additional living space.

On 12 July 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 19 April 2011 and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the case had to be examined by administrative courts. On 1 September 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court refused to grant leave to the applicants ’ appeal in cassation against the latter decision.

The applicants then again lodged an administrative claim against the Committee.

On 23 January 2012 the District Court partly allowed it and obliged the Committee to restore the applicants on the list of persons requiring improvement of living conditions.

On 6 June 2012 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 January 2012 and terminated the proceedings. It noted that the applicants had already lodged an identical administrative claim on 25 January 2010 and that by the ruling of 9 April 2010 the District Court had terminated the proceedings. Referring further to Article 109 § 1 (2) of the Code of Administrative Justice (which provided that the administrative court had to refuse to open the proceedings in a dispute between the same parties concerning the same subject-matter if there had been, inter alia , a final ruling on the termination of administrative proceedings), it concluded that the District Court had mistakenly repeatedly opened the proceedings.

On 11 July 2012 the Higher Administrative Court refused to grant leave to the applicants ’ appeal in cassation against the latter decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts refused to examine the merits of their claim against the Committee.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the domestic courts ’ refusal to examine the merits of their claim (see, mutatis mutandis , Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine , no. 37878/02, §§ 51 and 53, 28 February 2008)?

The parties are requested to provide copies of the applicants ’ appeals lodged in the domestic proceedings.