Communicated on 26 March 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 13249/11 Anatoliy Vasylyovych VIDANOV against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants, all Ukrainian nationals, is set out in the appendix.

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

In various disputes domestic courts delivered decisions favourable to the applicants. The opposing parties appealed and the judgments were quashed or amended on appeal in ways unfavourable to the applicants. The applicants allege that they were not adequately informed of various steps in the appeal proceedings and, therefore, were prevented from adequately participating in them.

In addition, in case no. 64766/12 the Supreme Court renewed the time-limit for appeal on points of law for the opposing party without giving specific reasons for that decision.

They learned about those decisions on subsequent dates.

Additional details are set out in the Appendix.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were not duly informed of the proceedings on appeal and/or of the opposing parties ’ submissions in them and were, therefore, not given an opportunity to adequately participate in them.

In case no. 64766/12 the applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the unjustified renewal of the time-limit for appeal in his case breached the principle of legal certainty.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was there a breach of the applicants ’ right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

1. Was the principle of equality of arms, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected during the proceedings on appeal in the applicants ’ cases?

2. In case no. 64766/12 , was the principle of legal certainty breached as a result of the renewal of the time-limit for lodging of the appeal by the plaintiff?

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Subject matter of the case

13249/11

14/02/2011

Anatoliy Vasylyovych VIDANOV

30/08/1944

Kyiv

Unrepresented

The applicant lodged a claim seeking an increase in his pension as a war veteran. On 23 October 2009 a first-instance court allowed his claim. The pension authority appealed. On 31/08/2010 Kyiv City Court of Appeal, having examined the appeal (allegedly without informing the applicant of the fact that it had been lodged), quashed the first-instance court ’ s judgment and rejected the applicant ’ s claim. This decision was final.

64766/12

26/09/2012

Ivan Leontiyovych YEREMEYEV

Date of birth unknown

Lugansk

Lyubov Sergiyivna STYEKSOVA

The applicant is a former manager of a company with State capital. The Government agency managing State assets (the plaintiff) sued him for damages in connection with a contract he signed on behalf of that company. The first instance court awarded damages. On 10/09/ 2009 the Lug ansk Regional Court of Appeal overturned the judgment finding that his fault had not been proven. On 11/10/2010 the Supreme Court renewed the time-limit for the Government agency ’ s appeal. On 14/12/2011 the High Civil and Criminal Court, having examined the appeal (allegedly without informing the applicant of the fact that it had been lodged), quashed the ruling on appeal and reaffirmed the first-instance court ’ s judgment. This decision was final.

3075/13

29/12/2012

Galyna Vasylivna

GRYTSA

10/11/1976

Khust

Yaroslav Markovych GRYTSA

The applicant lodged a claim against a social security authority seeking an increase in the allowance she was receiving as a mother of a minor child. A first-instance court allowed her claim in part. This judgment was upheld on appeal but the social security authority lodged a further appeal on points of law. On 6/11/2012 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”), having examined the appeal (allegedly without informing the applicant of the fact that it had been lodged), quashed the lower courts ’ judgments and rejected the applicant ’ s claim, This decision was final.

63879/13

30/09/2013

Maryna Volodymyrivna SHADURA

22/12/1982

Kharkiv

Dmytro Mykolayovych SHADURA

The applicant moved from the territory of the Republic of Moldova controlled by the so ‑ called “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria ” (“MRT”) (see IlaÅŸcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ VII, in particular § 330) to Ukraine to take up permanent residence. Under domestic law repatriating Ukrainians are entitled to import their vehicles registered abroad tax- and duty-free. However, when the applicant attempted to clear her car tax-free, the customs authorities refused to apply this tax exemption on the grounds that the car was not registered by the lawful authorities of the Republic of Moldova. She challenged this refusal before administrative courts. A first-instance court allowed her claim and ordered the customs office to clear her car tax-free. This judgment was upheld on appeal but the customs office lodged a further appeal on points of law. On 4/04/2013 the HAC, having examined the appeal (allegedly without informing the applicant of the fact that it had been lodged) quashed the lower courts ’ decisions and rejected the applicant ’ s claim.