Communicated on 21 June 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 4827/11 Nina Mykhaylivna METYOLKINA against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see table appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants in applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16 are Ukrainian nationals. The applicant company in application no. 26672/14 is a private company based in Ukraine. The applicants ’ personal details and other relevant information are set out in the appendix below.

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

A. Applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16

The applicants concerned were parties to proceedings before civil or administrative courts. They did not take part in the hearings on appeal either because their participation was not required or because there was no oral hearing. The relevant procedural regulations (Article 222 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Articles 167 § 3 and 197 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time) required appellate courts to send copies of the adopted appeal decisions to the applicants within short delays - between two and five days. Allegedly, in the cases of the applicants concerned, this was done after longer delays.

In so far as applications nos. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16 are concerned, the delayed dispatch of the appeal decisions allegedly resulted in that the applicants concerned were not able to lodge their cassation appeals within the applicable twe nty-day time-limit (Article 325 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Article 212 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time). For that reason, when lodging their cassation appeals with the cassation courts, those applicants also requested extension of that time-limit, for which they provided detailed and specific explanations and documentary evidence, including postal receipts.

As to application no. 18059/12, in her cassation appeal, the applicant provided detailed reasoning, based on a specific legal provision – Article 254 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time, arguing that in her case the applicable time-limit of twenty days had not expired.

As it transpires from the material submitted by the applicants, the cassation courts, which were empowered to grant extension of the impugned time-limit where it had been missed for “justifiable reasons” ( поважн і причин и , Article 325 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 and Article 214 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time), either ignored or dismissed the applicants ’ submissions concerning the application of the above time-limit. Consequently, the applicants ’ cassation appeals were rejected as lodged out of time without having been examined on the merits. Further details are set out in the appendix below.

B. Application no. 26672/14

The applicant company ’ s representative in the civil proceedings, to which it was a party, was present at the hearing of 16 July 2013 before Severodonetsk Court (first-instance court), at which that court pronounced the introductory and operative parts of its judgment.

On 17 July 2013 the applicant company ’ s representative lodged with that court a written request for a full text of the judgment and asked it to inform him as to when the full text would be ready, which was required by Article 218 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time.

By letter of 7 September 2013, Severodonetsk Court sent the full text of its judgment to the applicant company ’ s representative. It was delivered to him on 10 September 2013.

On 11 September 2013 the representative lodged with the Lugansk Court of Appeal an appeal against the judgment of 16 July 2013 and requested extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit (Article 294 § 1 of the of Civil Procedure of 2004), which he had missed allegedly because of the belated receipt of the full text of the contested judgment.

By decision of 16 October 2013, the Lugansk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company ’ s appeal as lodged out of time, having held that no “justifiable reasons” had been put forward for the requested extension of the time-limit.

On 18 November 2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters dismissed the applicant company ’ s cassation appeal, having found no breach of the procedural rules on account of the contested decision of the court of appeal. Further details are set out in the appendix below.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of their right of access to a court. Some of the applicants also invoke Article 13 of the Convention in that regard.

COMMON QUESTION FOR APPLICATIONS nOS. 4827/11, 75428/11, 305/12, 18059/12, 24892/13 and 45201/16

Has there been an infringement of the applicants ’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that their cassation appeals were not examined on the merits?

QUESTION FOR APPLICATION nO. 26672/14

Has there been an infringement of the applicant company ’ s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in that its appeal was not examined on the merits?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name,

date of birth,

place of residence

Represented by

Subject-matter of the dispute

Alleged lack of access to

Final decision

Alleged shortcoming

4827/11*

06/01/2011

Nina Mykhaylivna METYOLKINA

28/02/1939

Severodonetsk

No representative

Recalculation of pension

Supreme Court

27/05/2010

delivered to the applicant on 27/07/2010

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having ignored the applicant ’ s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court ’ s decision.

75428/11*

01/12/2011

Gennadiy Pavlovych KOVAL

08/05/1968

Novosafronivka

No representative

Validity of a loan contract

Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”)

06/05/2011

The HSCCM dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that the applicant ’ s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appeal) court ’ s decision was inadmissible.

305/12*

08/12/2011

Igor Viktorovych SKLYAROV

10/08/1965

Novostriltsivka

No representative

Validity of changes to a loan contract

Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”)

10/05/2011

delivered to the applicant on 17/06/2011

The HSCCM dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that the applicant ’ s request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court ’ s decision was inadmissible.

18059/12*

19/03/2012

Zinaida Sergeyevna OZERSKAYA

27/07/1951

Torez

No representative

Recalculation of pension

Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”)

01/11/2011

The HAC dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons for not having taken into consideration the date on which the contested decision had been dispatched to the applicant, even though under the relevant domestic law as worded at the material time (Article 254 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Justice) this was crucial for the determination of the starting point for the impugned time-limit.

24892/13*

04/04/2013

Ganna Grygorivna KOSYANCHUK

11/07/1930

Poltava

No representative

Recalculation of social payments

Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”)

12/10/2012

The HAC ’ s decision dismissing the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as lodged out of time and refusing her request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court ’ s decision was not in accordance with the law as worded at the material time (Articles 212 § 2 and 254 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Justice) and was disproportionate.

26672/14

25/03/2014

STRAKHOVA KOMPANIYA UNIVERSALNA, PAT

23/12/1994

Kyiv

Mykola Yevgenovych PIKA

Lawyer practising in Lviv

Compensation claim against a private person

Lugansk Court of Appeal

18/11/2013

Lugansk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company ’ s appeal as lodged out of time, having given no reasons or explanation as to why it considered that its request for extension of the relevant time-limit based on belated receipt of a copy of the lower (first-instance) court ’ s decision was inadmissible.

45201/16

21/07/2016

Nadiya Yosafativna KRAKALOVYCH

10/09/1971

Khmelnytskyy

No representative

Bailiffs ’ refusal to enforce a judgment awarding the applicant a sum to be paid by a private person

Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”)

17/03/2016

The applicant was required to lodge her cassation appeal with the HSCCM within 20 days of the date of the adoption of the lower (appellate) court ’ s judgment of 11 December 2015. As she had not been present at the hearing of that date and had been notified of the contested decision 14 days later - on 25 December 2015, the applicant requested extension of that time-limit until 6 January 2016, the date on which she lodged her cassation appeal with the HSCCM, so that at least part of the twenty-day statutory period was thereby afforded to her. She argued that she needed that time to prepare her cassation appeal. The HSCCM considered that she should have lodged her cassation appeal by 31 December 2015 and that she had provided no justifiable reasons for her failure to comply with that time-limit. The HSCCM gave no further explanation in that regard.