Published on 5 June 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 62144/16 Svitlana Vasylivna ROMANYK against Ukraine lodged on 19 October 2016 communicated on 15 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right of access to court.

In August 2015 the applicant filed a lawsuit against a private bank to recover a deposit and interest thereon. In her statement of claim, the applicant requested the court to hear the case in her absence.

On 18 January 2016, the first-instance court left the applicant’s claim without examination due to the applicant’s repeated failure to appear in court despite being duly summoned. The applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that in her application she had explicitly requested that the case be considered in her absence.

On 24 February 2016 the Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings because the applicant had not paid the court fee and granted the applicant a deadline for payment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that she had been exempted from paying the court fee. On 22 March 2016 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases ("HSCCC") opened proceedings on the applicant’s cassation appeal and invited the parties to submit their observations by 10 May 2016. The outcome of these proceedings, if any, is unknown.

Meanwhile, on 25 March 2016 the Court of Appeal returned the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 18 January 2016 without consideration due to the applicant’s failure to comply with the ruling of 24 February 2016 and non ‑ payment of the court fee. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law, relying on the same arguments as in her appeal against the ruling of 24 February 2016. On 12 April 2016 the HSCCC requested from the applicant a "duly certified" copy of the Court of Appeal’s ruling of 25 March 2016; the applicant claims that she never received this request. On 8 June 2016 the HSCCC returned unexamined the applicant’s appeal due to her failure to comply with the ruling of 12 April 2016 and provide the requested copy of the ruling of the Court of Appeal; this decision was final.

The applicant complains that she has been unlawfully denied access to court in her case since: (a) she was not duly informed of the HSCCC ruling of 12 April 2016 and was therefore unable to comply with it; and (b) the obligation to submit a certified copy of the appellate court’s ruling, which was imposed on her by the said ruling of the HSCCC, was not provided for by the Civil Procedural Code. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Having regard to the applicant’s allegation that she was not duly informed of the ruling of the HSCCC of 12 April 2016, was the decision of the HSCCC not to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law because of her failure to comply with the referred ruling compatible with the guarantees enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention?

(b) Did the referred decision of the HSCCC not to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law because of her failure to provide a certified copy of the relevant court’s decision amounted to excessive formalism (see, mutatis mutandis , Myshchyshyn v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 41557/13, 6 October 2022)?

The Government are requested to provide evidence concerning the notification of the applicant of the ruling of 12 April 2016 as well as other relevant documents.