Communicated on 22 February 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 2064/12 Ivan Georgiyovych LEONIDOV against Ukraine lodged on 30 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ivan Georgiyovych Leonidov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Mariupol.

The circumstances of the case

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

From 4 March 1970 until 15 September 1997 the applicant held different posts within the Mariupol Industrial College. In this respect he claimed a pension for his years of service, to which he was entitled under the domestic law then in force. The pension authorities refused to grant the pension to the applicant as there was a dispute regarding whether work undertaken by the applicant while he had occupied certain posts at the Mariupol Industrial College was to be included in his record of service. The applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the domestic courts seeking payment of the pension.

On 7 November 2007 the Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Mariupol allowed the applicant ’ s claim. Following an appeal by the pension authorities, on 21 March 2008 the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned judgment. Following an appeal by the pension authorities, on 16 June 2009 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the above ‑ mentioned decisions and remitted the applicant ’ s case for fresh examination.

On 31 August 2009 the Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Mariupol allowed the applicant ’ s claim for a pension. Following an appeal by the pension authorities, on 4 March 2010 the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rejected the applicant ’ s claim. The applicant appealed on points of law. On 16 April 2010 the Higher Administrative Court declined to examine the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law on the grounds that owing to changes in the legislation the applicant ’ s claim now fell within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and the applicant should have lodged his appeal with the Supreme Court.

The applicant re-lodged his appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. On 21 January 2011 the latter forwarded the claim to the Higher Administrative Court following yet another change in legislation regarding jurisdiction in such cases.

On 19 September 2011 the Higher Administrative Court declined to examine the applicant ’ s claim, reasoning that on 16 April 2010 it had already refused to institute cassation proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic courts to examine the merits of his claim, thus depriving him of his right of access to court .

The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an interference with his property rights by virtue of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the merits of his claim for a pension for his years of service.

QUESTIONS

1. 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?

2. Did the refusal of the domestic courts to examine the merits of the applicant ’ s claims impair his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did it impose on the applicant a disproportionate burden, contrary to his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions?