FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF FOMICHOV AND ALAND GROUP, TOV v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 57804/17 and 31516/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 May 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fomichov and Aland Group, TOV v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Vahe Grigoryan,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. 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 FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the limitations on access to a court.
THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
THE LOCUS STANDI OF MRs VALENTYNA MYKOLAYIVNA FOMICHOVA IN APPLICATION NO. 57804/176. The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 57804/17 died on 10 January 2020, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s widow, Mrs Valentyna Mykolayivna Fomichova, requested to pursue the application on her late husband’s behalf. The Court reiterates that in various cases, where applicants died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, X. v. France, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26, and Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 28, 19 July 2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case and, therefore, accepts that the applicant’s widow, Mrs Valentyna Mykolayivna Fomichova, can pursue the application initially brought by him. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention7. The applicants complained of the limitations on access to a court. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court - that is the right to institute proceedings before the courts in civil matters - constitutes an element which is inherent in the right set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual 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).
9. In the leading cases cited in the appended table below, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. 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.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Decides that Mrs V. M. Fomichova, the widow of the applicant in application no. 57804/17, has locus standi in the proceedings; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitations on access to a court; Holds 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; 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(limitations on access to a court)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Key issue impairing access to a court
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded for non‑pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
57804/17
25/07/2017
Viktor Ivanovych FOMICHOV
1949
Died in 2020
Heir
Valentyna Mykolayivna FOMICHOVA
Klopkov Sergiy Mykolayovych
Zaporizhzhya
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
By a decision of 24/03/2017 in a pension recalculation case, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhia dismissed, without providing any specific reasons, the applicant’s request for exemption from paying the court fee of 640 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (approximately 22 euros (EUR)) based on his alleged lack of funds, in support of which he had provided a copy of his pension certificate, confirming that his pension of UAH 1,505 (approximately EUR 51) was his only income. The applicant appealed and requested an exemption from paying the appellate court fee of UAH 1,600 (approximately EUR 54) on the same ground of lack of funds, referring to the certificate that he had provided to the first-instance court. On 26/05/2017 the Dnipro Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s exemption request as unsubstantiated, reasoning that it had not included any new grounds for the requested exemption. On 19/06/2017 the Higher Administrative Court (HAC) declined to hear the applicant’s cassation appeal.
1,500
250
31516/19
03/06/2019
ALAND GROUP, TOV
2011
disagreement between different courts regarding jurisdiction
Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine, no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008
In July 2014 the applicant company challenged the Bailiffs’ decision attaching wheat crop before the administrative courts. It claimed ownership title to it pursuant to a contract concluded with a private party and argued that attaching the crop for the latter’s debt was unlawful. Following instructions in the Dnipro Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision of 31/03/2015, in April 2015 the applicant company brought its claims to the civil courts. In February 2018, following instructions in the decision of the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters of 01/11/2017, it brought the claims to the commercial courts. Meanwhile, in June 2016 the crop was sold by the Bailiffs. By a final decision of 27/11/2018 (served on the applicant company on 14/12/2018), the Supreme Court rejected its claims, reasoning that (i) since the crop had been sold in June 2016, the applicant company had failed to substantiate the existence of the disputed property as of the time of lodging the claims with the commercial courts in February 2018; (ii) the applicant company had failed to challenge the attachment of the crop in the framework of commercial proceedings before the crop had been sold; and (iii) the applicant company had erroneously submitted its claims initially to the administrative and later to the civil courts.
1,500
-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.