FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 8821/08
Georgiy Ivanovych BAYDUZH against Ukraine
lodged on 5 February 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Georgiy Ivanovych Bayduzh, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 July 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bagleyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk. He sought to recover the indexed deposits which he had placed with the Ukraine Savings Bank in 1991.
On 17 September 2007 the court, in the applicant’s absence, left his complaint without consideration for procedural shortcomings. The applicant received this decision on 26 September 2007 by post.
On 27 September 2007 he appealed to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal. He explained that he had missed the statutory five-day time-limit for lodging that appeal because he had received the first instance decision only on 26 September 2007. The applicant also asked for an extension of the time-limit to lodge his appeal.
On 16 October 2007 the court of appeal refused to grant the applicant’s request on the ground that the applicant had failed to request such an extension.
On 12 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as being unfounded.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time, reads in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Request for appeal can be lodged within five days after pronouncement of a first instance court decision. The appeal itself can be lodged during ten days following the date of lodging the request.
Request for appeal or the appeal itself which are lodged out of time should be left without consideration unless the court of appeal, upon an appellant’s request, finds reasons to renew the time-limit.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he cannot recover his indexed deposits.
He also complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the courts’ decisions lacked an adequate reasoning and that his access to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal was arbitrary restricted.
ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, has there been an infringement of his right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the refusal of the court of appeal to deal with the applicant’s appeal on the merits?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy