Published on 3 July 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 55919/16 Ivan Vasylyovych KLYMUKH against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applicants’ appeals and/or cassation appeals in the commercial and civil proceedings to which they were parties were not examined on the merits for their failure to pay the relevant court fees. In particular, the courts held that the applicants’ requests for exemption from the obligation to pay those fees on account of their lack of funds were unfounded (further details are set out in the appended table). Allegedly, this resulted in the disproportionate restriction of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicants in all three applications concerned have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that their appeals and/or cassation appeals were not examined on the merits for their failure to pay the relevant court fees (see, for instance, Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI; Malahov v. Moldova , no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007; and Ciorap v. Moldova , no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19 June 2007)?

APPENDIX

List of the applications

No.

Application no. Case name Introduction date

Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality

Facts and relevant information,

as submitted by the applicants

1.

55919/16 Klymukh v. Ukraine 13/09/2016

Mr Ivan Vasylyovych KLYMUKH 1942 Grabovets Ukrainian

Represented by

Sergiy Olegovych POPELCHUK

In 2015 the applicants instituted proceedings before the Commercial Court of the Lviv Region against a private company and its shareholders claiming compensation for the allegedly unlawful refusal to restore the applicants’ status as shareholders of that company. On 23 December 2015 the court, having exempted the applicants from the obligation to pay the relevant court fees and having examined their claims on the merits, rejected them as unfounded. The applicants lodged separate appeals with the Lviv Commercial Court of Appeal against that judgment and requested it to exempt them from paying the court fee of around 890 for each appeal, stating that they could not pay that sum given that their only monthly income (pension) was around 130 and 70 euros, respectively. They provided copies of various documents in that regard. On 25 March 2016 the appellate court refused to examine the appeals on the merits, finding no “exceptional circumstances” justifying the requested exemption from paying the relevant court fee. On 14 June 2016 the Higher Commercial Court upheld that decision.

2.

60298/16 Durdynets v. Ukraine 13/09/2016

Mr Petro Petrovych DURDYNETS 1959 Kyiv Ukrainian

Represented by

Sergiy Olegovych POPELCHUK

3.

77527/16 Suprunenko v. Ukraine 03/12/2016

Ms Olena Vasylivna SUPRUNENKO 1968 Svitlovodsk Ukrainian

Represented by

Olena Valeriyivna DERECHYNA

In July 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) against the judgement of the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal of 21 June 2016 allowing a private person’s claim regarding the applicant’s title to a house. The applicant requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee of around 135 euros, stating that she was unemployed, took care of a minor child, had no other assets than the house the title to which was the subject-matter of the proceedings and that her family’s only income was her husband’s monthly salary not exceeding 70 euros. She provided copies of various documents in that regard. On 31 August 2016 the HSCCM refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal, holding generally that she had not demonstrated that she had had no money to pay the court fee.