FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF METYOLKINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 4827/11 and 4 others
– see appended table)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 October 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Metyolkina and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Lado Chanturia,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in five 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.
4. The applicants complained of the denial of access to higher courts in their cases.
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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention6. The applicants complained that they had been denied access to higher courts in the course of civil proceedings to which they had been a party. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. 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. 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).
8. In the leading case of Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of an issue similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 the applicants’ complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the application of relevant procedural rules leading to the denial of the applicants’ access to higher courts could not be regarded as foreseeable and/or was excessively formalistic.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above, § 36), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and it rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants.
13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
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 denial of access to higher 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 28 October 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(denial of access to higher courts)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/year of registration
Representative’s name and location
Specific irregularity complained of
Facts and relevant information
Amount awarded
for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs
and expense
per application
(in euros)[2]
4827/11
06/01/2011
Nina Mykhaylivna METYOLKINA
1939
Motorygina Marina Gennadiyevna
Kharkiv
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
By decision of 27/05/2010 in the proceedings regarding recalculation of pension (served on the applicant on 27/07/2010), the Supreme Court rejected her cassation appeal, which she had submitted together with a request for the extension of the applicable one-month time-limit (Article 212 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005, as worded at the material time) based on her belated receipt of a copy of the lower (appellate) court’s decision of 04/03/2009. The Supreme Court held that the cassation appeal had been lodged out of time and that no extension had been requested. The applicant provided to the Court copies of her cassation appeal and related extension request and a copy of the ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of 22/04/2010 indicating that on 17/09/2009 it had sought the case file from the lower courts in order “to decide on the question of the renewal of the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal”.
1,500
250
75428/11
01/12/2011
Gennadiy Pavlovych KOVAL
1968
Yarmush Vitaliy Viktorovych
Nova Odesa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
By decision of 06/05/2011 in the civil proceedings regarding the validity of a loan contract, the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (the HSCCM) rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal of 15/04/2011 against the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 01/03/2011 as lodged out of time and held that his request for extension of the applicable twenty-day time-limit (Article 325 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time), which was based on the fact that he had received a copy of the contested decision only on 31/03/2011, did not contain “justifiable reasons” for granting the requested extension. The HSCCM gave no further explanation in that regard.
1,500
250
24892/13
04/04/2013
Ganna Grygorivna KOSYANCHUK
1930
Slipchenko Yuriy Anatoliyovych
Poltava
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
By decision of 12/10/2012 in the proceedings regarding the alleged entitlement to social payments, the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal of 16/07/2012 against the appellate court’s decision of 14/06/2012 as lodged out of time and held that her request for extension of the relevant twenty-day time-limit (Articles 212 § 2 and 254 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2004, as worded at the material time), which was based on the fact that a copy of the contested appellate decision had been sent to her only on 03/07/2012, did not contain “justifiable reasons” for granting the requested extension. No further reasons were provided in that regard.
1,500
250
26672/14
25/03/2014
STRAKHOVA KOMPANIYA UNIVERSALNA, PAT
1994
Pika Mykola Yevgenovych
Lviv
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
By decision of 16/10/2013 in the civil proceedings concerning compensation for
pecuniary damage, the Lugansk Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s appeal of 11/09/2013 against the Severodonetsk Court’s judgment of 16/07/2013 as lodged out of time and held that its request for extension of the relevant ten-day time-limit (Article 294 § 1 of the of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time), which was based on the fact that the full text of the contested judgment had been delivered to the applicant company only on 10/09/2013, did not contain “justifiable reasons” for granting the requested extension. On 18/11/2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld the decision of 16/10/2013, without providing any further reasons in that regard.
1,500
250
45201/16
21/07/2016
Nadiya Yosafativna KRAKALOVYCH
1971
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Following the Khmelnytsk Appellate Court’s decision of 11/12/2015, unfavourable to the applicant, she could lodge a cassation appeal with the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (the HSCCM) within twenty days (Article 325 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2004, as worded at the material time). As she had not been present at the hearing on that date and had only been notified of the contested decision on 25/12/2015, the applicant requested extension of that time-limit until 06/01/2016, the date on which she lodged her cassation appeal with the HSCCM, so that at least part of the twenty-day statutory period was thereby afforded to her to prepare it. The HSCCM considered that she should have lodged her cassation appeal by 31/12/2015 and that she had provided no “justifiable reasons” for her failure to comply with that time-limit. The HSCCM gave no further explanation in that regard.
1,500
none
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.