Communicated on 8 January 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 65647/12 Aleksandr Yuzikovich KOPCHINSKIY against Ukraine lodged on 1 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Yuzikovich Kopchinskiy , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kyiv.

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

During the period between 13 August 1996 and 21 March 2008 the applicant was a lawyer authorised to practise in Ukraine. On 20 November 2007 the qualifications and disciplinary committee of the Sevastopol Bar Association (“the Bar committee”) adopted a decision imposing on him a reprimand by way of a disciplinary penalty. On 21 March 2008 the higher qualifications and disciplinary committee of the Bar Association (“the higher Bar committee”) quashed the above-mentioned decision and adopted a new one – that of annulling the applicant ’ s licence to practise law.

A. Administrative proceedings

1. First set of proceedings

On 10 December 2007 the applicant lodged an administrative claim with the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol seeking the annulment of the decision of the Bar committee of 20 November 2007. On 28 March 2008 he amended his claim, now also seeking the annulment of the decision of the higher Bar committee of 21 March 2008. On 26 December 2008 the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol terminated the proceedings in the applicant ’ s case on the grounds that the same case was already being heard by this court (see the “Second set of proceedings” section below). Following an appeal by the applicant, on 14 June 2011 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 26 December 2008. Following a further appeal by the applicant, on 20 April 2012 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine quashed the decisions of 26 December 2008 and 14 June 2011 and terminated the proceedings in the case, ruling that the case was to be considered in civil proceedings.

2. Second set of proceedings

In March 2008 the applicant lodged an administrative claim with the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol, seeking the annulment of the decision of the higher Bar committee of 21 March 2008. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 21 April 2008 the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol refused to examine the merits of the applicant ’ s claim on the grounds that it was to be considered in civil proceedings. On 26 July 2011 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal quashed the above-mentioned decision and refused to examine the merits of the applicant ’ s case on the grounds that an identical case was being examined by the domestic courts (the court referred to the claim that the applicant lodged on 10 December 2007).

B. Civil proceedings

The applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol. On 8 May 2009 that court decided to disjoin the applicant ’ s claim and to open two separate sets of proceedings (one challenging the decision of the Bar committee of 20 November 2007, and the other challenging the decision of the higher Bar committee of 21 March 2008). On 30 July 2010 it terminated the proceedings concerning the annulment of the decision of 20 November 2007 on the grounds that the case should not have been examined in civil proceedings. The applicant ’ s claim challenging the decision of the higher Bar committee of 21 March 2008 was transferred to the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, which, on 15 February 2013, terminated the proceedings in question on the grounds that the case fell to be examined in administrative proceedings. On 30 April 2013 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. On 11 September 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

C. Proceedings challenging the domestic courts ’ failure to examine the applicant ’ s case

The applicant lodged another civil claim challenging ( i ) the domestic courts ’ failure to examine his previous case and (ii) the alleged resulting denial of justice of which he had been the victim. On 5 March 2014 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv refused to open proceedings in respect of the applicant ’ s claim. In particular, the court argued that the claim should be examined in administrative proceedings. Following an appeal by the applicant, that decision was upheld on 28 May 2014. Following a further appeal by the applicant, on 3 September 2014 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the decisions of the first-instance court and of the court of appeal.

COMPLAINT

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

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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