Published on 28 August 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 13501/21 FINANSOVA KOMPANIYA PRIMINVEST, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 25 February 2021 communicated on 10 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the Commercial Court of Kyiv to reimburse an allegedly overpaid amount in respect of court fees (271,040.16 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), the equivalent of around 8,200 euros (EUR) at the material time) to the applicant company in the proceedings concerning its action for the direct recovery of UAH 18,186,810.51 (the equivalent of around EUR 560,000 at the material time) deposited with a private bank eventually declared insolvent and administered by a State fund. The action was examined on the merits and ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court’s decision of 1 September 2020, the courts having held that the money had to be recovered through the relevant insolvency procedure.

On 7 October 2020 the Commercial Court of Kyiv decided that the amount it had instructed the applicant company to pay in respect of the court fee in the proceedings before that court had been based on the rate applicable in respect of pecuniary claims and that consequently no reimbursement could be made pursuant to Section 7 of the Court Fee Act of 8 July 2011. The applicant company alleges that the decision of 7 October 2020 contradicted the decisions of the North Commercial Court of Appeal of 11 February 2020 and of the Supreme Court of 1 September 2020 classifying the applicant company’s action as being of a non-pecuniary nature and accordingly using a substantially lower rate for calculating the relevant court fee (UAH 3,524, the equivalent of around EUR 110 at the material time). The applicant company complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was there an interference with the applicant company’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the refusal of its claim for reimbursement of the allegedly overpaid amount in respect of the court fee in the proceedings before the Commercial Court of Kyiv?

If so, was the interference based on a clear and foreseeable interpretation of the relevant procedural regulations? Did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, for instance, Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 76-97, 18 July 2013; Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos. 73579/17 and 14620/18, §§ 49 and 65-74, 18 February 2020; and Čolić v. Croatia , no. 49083/18, §§ 39-60, 18 November 2021, with further references)?