FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BOYCHUK AND RASPRYAKHIN v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 61415/13 and 2 others-
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Boychuk and Raspryakhin v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention5. The applicants complained of limitations on their access to courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
6. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Furthermore, it is not for this Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references).
7. In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI), Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007), Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19 June 2007), and Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above § 36, and Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitations on access to courts; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(limitations on access to courts)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Specific irregularity complained of
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
61415/13
16/09/2013
and
28604/14
24/05/2014
Petro Ivanovych BOYCHUK
1954
Karvatskyy Ruslan Mykolayovych
Yezupil
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations;
prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aid
Kreuz v. Poland,
no. 28249/95,
§§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI; Malahov
v. Moldova,
no. 32268/02,
§§ 31-36, 7 June 2007; Ciorap v. Moldova,
no. 12066/02,
§§ 93-96, 19 June 2007; Mushta
v. Ukraine,
no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010
Application no. 61415/13
In September 2012 the applicant, who at the material time was unemployed and in that connection was allocated a monthly allowance of around 80 euros and also had the official status of a person with income lower than the official “minimum living standard” (малозабезпечений), lodged with the Tysmenytsya Town Court (the first-instance court) an administrative claim against the authorities challenging their refusal to increase his allowance so that it was equal to the official monthly “minimum living standard” of around 110 euros in 2012. In that regard,
he submitted, inter alia, the official documents concerning his status and income.
On 11/12/2012 the first-instance court, having exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the relevant court fee (approximately 10 euros) and having examined the claim on the merits, rejected it, finding no fault on the part of the authorities.
By the decision of 14/02/2013, the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible for his failure to pay the relevant court fee of approximately 5 euros and in particular held that he had failed to provide documents in support of his request for exemption from paying that fee pursuant to Article 88 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time.
On 27/02/2013 the Higher Administrative Court (the cassation court) granted the applicant’s request to lodge an appeal on points of law (cassation appeal) against the appellate court’s inadmissibility decision of 14 February 2013 without paying the court fee because of his lack of funds.
On 21/08/2013 the cassation court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s inadmissibility decision of 14/02/2013 as unfounded, without providing any specific reasoning in that regard.
Consequently, the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance court’s judgment of 11/12/2012 was not examined on the merits.
Application no. 28604/14
By several decisions delivered between October and December 2013, the Tysmenytsya Town Court and the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal refused to examine the applicant’s claim, essentially the same as that of September 2012 (see application no. 61415/13) except that it concerned a different period of time, and appeal on the merits for his failure to pay the court fees of around 10 and 5 euros respectively. The courts held that the applicant’s requests for exemption from the obligation to pay those fees were unfounded, without providing any further details in that regard.
By the final decision of 14 January 2014, the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal, finding no fault on the part of the lower courts.
900
77718/13
11/10/2013
Igor Oleksiyovych RASPRYAKHIN
1967
Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych
Kyiv
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations;
prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aid
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; Mushta
v. Ukraine,
no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010
On 15 January 2010 the Kirovskyy District Court in Kirovograd allowed the applicant’s former spouse’s claim for divorce, while he was temporarily detained pending the criminal proceedings against him.
On 19 February 2013 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
On 22 April 2013 the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s cassation appeal for his failure to pay the court fee of around 7 euros. The HSCCM held that he had not demonstrated that he had had no money to pay it and thus rejected his request for exemption from the obligation to pay that fee pursuant to Article 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time, which was supported by a certificate issued by the administration of a detention facility attesting that the applicant had been continuously detained at that facility since 2009 and had had no income.
900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.