FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66965/13
Larysa Vasylivna CHERNOVA
against Ukraine
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 September 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the limitations on access to a court were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible.
In particular, the Court notes that there is no indication that the applicant’s access rights under Article 6 of the Convention were unlawfully or disproportionately restricted since, as transpires from the parties’ submissions, the full text of the first-instance judgment was published in the official online register of judicial decisions on 7 November 2012. The applicant did not argue that she had been unable to access it and, if necessary, to amend her appeal before the appellate hearing of 19 December 2012. Furthermore, in her appeal, the applicant addressed the main factual and legal elements on which the first-instance judgment was based. The appellate decision of 19 December 2012 shows that the appellate court reviewed these elements. Finally, the applicant failed to specify any arguments which she had been unable to raise before the higher courts due to the allegedly delayed delivery of the full text of the first-instance judgment.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 25 September 2025.
Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(limitations on access to a court)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Key issue impairing access to a court
Case-law
Facts and relevant information
66965/13
16/10/2013
Larysa Vasylivna CHERNOVA
1980
Belated receipt of the first instance decision
Stichting Landgoed Steenbergen and Others v. the Netherlands,
no. 19732/17,
16 February 2021,
§§ 43-54
On 31/10/2012 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, having considered the case in a public hearing with the applicant’s participation, rejected her claim challenging her dismissal from work. The court pronounced only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment, a written copy of which the applicant received immediately after the hearing. On 07/11/2012 the full text of the judgment was published in the official online register of judicial decisions. On 08/11/2012 the applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing that the first-instance court’s assessment of the facts had been incorrect and incomplete and that it had misapplied the relevant law. She also argued that she had not received the full text of the contested judgment. On 19/12/2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal reviewed the case based on the evidence present in the case file and the parties’ written submissions. It upheld the first-instance judgment. The parties did not take part in the appellate hearing. On 27/02/2013 the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, finding that her complaints regarding the lower courts’ assessment of facts and application of law and the alleged procedural shortcomings were unsubstantiated.
According to the applicant, she only received the full text of the first-instance judgment on 13/02/2013.