Communicated on 20 June 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 55354/17 Anatoliy Arkhipovich PYATACHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 July 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Arkhipovich Pyatachenko , is a Ukrainian national , who was born in 1948 and lives in Alchevsk in the Luhansk Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr S.S. Medvedev, a lawyer practising in Lysychansk .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

As a result of the events described in Khlebik v. Ukraine , no. 2945/16 , §§ 9-12, 25 July 2017) Alchevsk , where the applicant lives, is currently outside of the Ukrainian Government ’ s control.

On 2 September 2014 the President of the High Civil and Criminal Court reassigned jurisdiction over cases which would normally have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Alchevsk Court to the Lysychansk Court (“the Lysychansk Court”), located in the Government ‑ controlled area of the Luhansk Region (ibid., § 15).

On 6 March 2017 the Lysychansk Court, at the applicant ’ s request, established the fact of the applicant ’ s brother ’ s death on 31 October 2014 in Georgiyivka of the Lutugynsky District of the Luhansk Region (outside of the Government ’ s control).

On 13 March 2017 the death was duly registered by the authorities in the territory controlled by the Government.

On 6 April 2017 the applicant submitted a statement with a notary in Sieverodonetsk (under the Government ’ s control) accepting the inheritance and asking the notary to issue an inheritance certificate. The latter refused to proceed referring to the time-limit for accepting the inheritance, which is six months from the moment of death.

The applicant lodged a claim with the Lysychansk Court against the Alchevsk City Council and the notary seeking to renew the time-limit for accepting the inheritance.

On 1 June 2017 the court allowed the claim and renewed the time-limit.

On 4 July 2010 the court informed the applicant that its judgment had not and could not become final and enforceable since one of the defendants, the Alchevsk City Council, was not functioning and the decision could not be served on it. The judgment would only become final and enforceable once that time-limit for appeal elapsed and the latter was calculated from the day the decision was served on the defendant (see “Relevant domestic law” below).

B. Relevant domestic law

The provisions of the domestic law concerning reassignment of jurisdiction over certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions are summarized in Khlebik , cited above, §§ 43-45.

Article 223 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as worded prior to 1 January 2018) provided that a court judgment becomes final upon expiry of the time-limit for appeal if no appeal is lodged. Article 294 § 1 of the Code provided that an appeal against a court ’ s judgment can be lodged within ten days of its pronouncement. If parties have not been present at the pronouncement they can appeal within ten days of the judgment being served on them.

The revised version of the Code in force from 1 January 2018 contains analogous provisions in Article 273 and 354 respectively.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of Court that his right of access to court has been breached on account of the authorities ’ failure to put in place a procedure by which he could obtain a final judicial decision in his case, in particular due to the authorities ’ failure to assign the relevant functions of the Alchevsk City Council to an entity in the Government ‑ controlled territory. He also complains that his right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been breached on account of those failings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of that provision?

3. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his other communicated complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?