Communicated on 27 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 32796/13 Olga Mykhaylivna SOLONEVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 2 May 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was expelled from a company of which she used to be a shareholder. She brought a claim seeking her share of the company ’ s assets. On 23 May 2012 the Kyiv City Commercial Court allowed the claim in part. The applicant, disagreeing with the amount awarded, appealed claiming that her share had to be based on the market and not book value of the company ’ s assets.

On 18 June 2012 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing on the applicant ’ s appeal for 17 July 2012 at one of the court ’ s buildings. On 5 July 2012 the Court of Appeal notified the applicant that the hearing would take place at the other court building, located in another part of Kyiv. The applicant alleges that this notice was sent to a wrong address and for this reason, not having received it, her counsel was prevented from attending the hearing. On 17 July 2012 the Court of Appeal, after hearing the case at the other court building in the absence of the applicant and in the presence of the other party, upheld the judgment.

By a final decision of 14 November 2012 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the judgment of 17 July 2012.

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the domestic courts failed to duly substantiate their decisions and reply to important arguments raised by her concerning her right to obtain compensation equal to the market value of the share. She also complains under the same Article that the Court of Appeal examined the case in her absence, without having duly informed her about the time and date of the hearing, but in the presence of the defendant. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 the applicant further alleges that she was unlawfully deprived of her property (the real value of her share in the company) as a result of unfair trial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the proceedings in the present case fair for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts comply with their obligation under that provision of the Convention to give reasons for their decisions and to reply to specific, pertinent and important arguments by the parties? Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the present case?

2. Do the facts of the case give rise to a vio lation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?