Communicated on 22 February 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 20316/13 Sergiy Volodymyrovych SMIRNOV against Ukraine lodged on 1 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergiy Volodymyrovych Smirnov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Kharkiv .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 21 December 2007 the applicant was the victim of an accident at the place where he was undergoing his compulsory military service, when a military vehicle drove into him. On 3 March 2008 the Simferopol Military Court released the vehicle ’ s driver on bail.

On 5 June 2008 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the domestic courts seeking compensation for injuries caused by the military vehicle from the Ministry of Defence , as the owner of the vehicle. On 13 June 2008 the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv declined to examine the merits of the applicant ’ s claim on the grounds that they should be examined in administrative proceedings. On 25 July 2008 the Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court declined to examine the merits of the applicant ’ s claim on the grounds that they should be examined in civil proceedings.

The applicant lodged another claim with the civil courts. On 13 August 2008 the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv again declined to examine the merits of the claim on the same grounds as those cited in its decision of 13 June 2008. The applicant appealed. On 16 October 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision. On 16 September 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination.

On 22 April 2011 the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv partly allowed the applicant ’ s claim. On 7 July 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 22 April 2011 and rejected the applicant ’ s claim. On 21 November 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court quashed the above-mentioned judgments and terminated proceedings in the applicant ’ s case, ruling that it should be considered in administrative jurisdiction.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the failure of the domestic courts to examine the merits of his claim, thus depriving him of his right of access to court .

QUESTION

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the termination of the proceedings in his case on the grounds that the domestic courts had no subject-matter jurisdiction over it?