Communicated on 14 February 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 1114/08 and 3450/09 Volodymyr Grygorovych YUNAK against Ukraine and Mikhail Yegorovich SOROKIN against Ukraine lodged on 24 December 2007 and 26 December 2008 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals.

A. The circumstances of the cases

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

1. Application no. 1114/08

The application was lodged on 24 December 2007 by Mr Volodymyr Grygorovych Yunak , who was born on 11 December 1952 and lives in Kyiv.

In August 2005 the applicant lodged a claim with the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Solomyanskyy Court”) against the land inventory authorities, seeking damages in respect of their refusal to provide him with certain documents.

By a judgment of 24 February 2006, the above court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The judgment provided that a statement of intent to lodge an appeal against it ( заява про апеляційне оскарження ) could be lodged within 10 days of the date of its delivery and the appeal itself within 20 days from the date on which the statement was lodged.

As is apparent from the documents in the case file, on 6 March 2006 the applicant lodged a statement of intent to lodge an appeal against the above judgment (the applicant did not provide a copy of the statement).

According to the applicant, on 24 March 2006 he lodged an appeal against the above judgment through the Solomyanskyy Court, as required by the procedural law then in force, and on 26 March 2006 he lodged a copy thereof directly with the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). The applicant ’ s appeal request as contained in the case file bears the date of 24 March 2006, as well as the Solomyanskyy Court ’ s stamp bearing the same date and the signature of an unspecified person. The copy of the appeal which the applicant lodged directly with the Court of Appeal bears two stamps which, the applicant states, are ones issued by the Court of Appeal: one of them indicates the reference number 15011 and the date of 26 March 20... ( year not filled in in full) and another one the reference number 8020 and the date of 31 March 2006.

A Court of Appeal ruling of 10 April 2006 left the applicant ’ s appeal unexamined. It stated that the applicant had lodged his statement of intent to lodge the appeal on 6 March 2006 and the appeal itself on 31 March 2006 – that is to say outside the 20-day time-limit for lodging the appeal − without requesting an extension of that time-limit.

The applicant appealed in cassation. He stated that he had lodged his appeal on 24 March 2006, and not on 31 March 2006, as stated by the Court of Appeal and that, having lodged his appeal on 24 March 2006, he had not needed to request an extension of the time-limit.

On 23 November 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant ’ s appeal in cassation, having upheld the findings made by the Court of Appeal. In particular, it stated that the applicant had lodged his appeal on 31 March 2006 and had not requested an extension of the applicable time-limit. It also stated that the applicant had not been deprived of the right to lodge such a request.

2. Application no. 3450/09

The application was lodged on 26 Decem ber 2008 by Mr Mikhail Yegorovich Sorokin, who was born on 18 November 1957 and lives in Toretsk .

In December 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Dzerzhinsk Court against the Social Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), seeking damages for injuries caused by a work-related incident.

By a judgment of 17 January 2008, the above court allowed the claim in part and awarded the applicant certain amounts in damages. The applicant and the Fund both appealed against that judgment.

In particular, on 25 January 2008 the applicant lodged through the Dzerzhinsk Court a statement of intent to lodge an appeal. A copy of his statement submitted to the Court bears the Dzerzhinsk Court ’ s stamp with the reference number 1561 and 25 January 2008 as the date of its receipt. On 13 February 2008 the applicant lodged the appeal itself, in which he requested that the appellate court quash the judgment of 17 January 2008 and award him the claimed damages in full. A copy of the applicant ’ s appeal bears the Dzerzhynsk Court ’ s stamp, with 13 February 2008 shown as the date of receipt.

In a ruling of 18 March 2008 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) examined the appeal lodged by the Fund, rejected it as unsubstantiated, and upheld the judgment of 17 January 2008. It did not mention the applicant ’ s appeal, stating only that at the hearing, which was held on the same day, the applicant and his representative had contested the Fund ’ s appeal and had asked the court to reject it.

According to the transcript of a court hearing of 18 March 2008, the applicant ’ s representative stated during the hearing that they had lodged the statement of intent to lodge an appeal on 25 January 2008 and the appeal itself on 13 February 2008. She also stated that they had not challenged the judgment of 17 January 2008 as regards the application of the law but, rather, were merely seeking a full award of the damages claimed by the applicant. The applicant ’ s representative also asked the Court of Appeal to reject the Fund ’ s appeal. The applicant stated that at the hearing his representative had also produced a copy of the applicant ’ s appeal and asked the Court of Appeal to join it to the case file, but the latter had refused to do so.

The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. He stated that he had lodged his ap peal against the judgment of 17 January 2008 but that when he arrived at the appellate hearing of 18 March 2008, it transpired that the appeal had been mislaid and his submissions had therefore not been examined by the Court of Appeal. He thus asked the Supreme Court to quash the ruling of 18 March 2008 and to remit the case for fresh examination.

On 27 June 2008 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to the applicant ’ s appeal in cassation. It stated that the Court of Appeal had examined the appeal lodged by the Fund, but the applicant had not personally lodged an appeal against the judgment of 17 January 2008 and for this reason, the case could not be reviewed in cassation. The Supreme Court did not address the applicant ’ s argument that he had indeed lodged an appeal, but that it had been mislaid.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 294 § 1 of the 2004 Code of Civil Procedure, as worded at the relevant time, provided that a statement of intent to lodge an appeal against a decision of a first-instance court could be lodged within 10 days of the date of delivery of the decision and that the actual appeal against the decision in question could be lodged within 20 days of the date on which the statement of intent to lodge an appeal had been lodged.

Article 294 § 3 provided that a statement of intent to lodge an appeal, or an actual appeal, lodged outside the above time-limits were to be left unexamined unless an appellate court ‒ at the request of the person who had lodged them ‒ had found reasons to extend the time-limits.

Article 296 provided that a statement of intent to lodge an appeal and an actual appeal against a court decision were to be lodged with the appellate court through the first-instance court which had adopted that decision. The first ‑ instance court would then forward the appeal to the appellate court.

Article 336 § 1 provided that, following the examination of an appeal in cassation against a court decision, the court of cassation had the right , inter alia , to quash that decision in full or in part and to remit the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court or the appellate court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in their cases were unfair.

In particular, in application no. 1114/08 the applicant complains that his appeal was rejected by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal on the erroneous ground that it had been lodged outside the applicable time-limit.

In the application no. 3450/09 the applicant complains that the Supreme Court did not examine his appeal in cassation on the erroneous ground that he had not previously lodged an appeal against the Dzerzhinsk Court ’ s judgment.

QUESTION

Did the decisions of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal of 23 November 2007 (application no. 1114/08) and of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 27 June 2008 (application no. 3450/09) amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, did the applicant in application no. 1114/08 lodge on time an appeal against the judgment of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 24 February 2006, and did the applicant in application no. 3450/09 lodge an appeal against the judgment of the Dzerzhinsk Court of 17 January 2008?

As regards the application no. 1114/08, the parties are also requested to provide the Court with a copy of the applicant ’ s statement of intent to lodge the appeal dated 6 March 2006 .