Published on 5 June 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 21725/15
Yuriy Mykolayovych DELEYCHUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 1 May 2015
communicated on 17 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant to get the legally envisaged compensation from the State budget for various expenses related to the rehabilitation of his disabled child.
In 2007 the applicant’s nine-year-old son was seriously injured in a traffic accident, as a result of which he became fully paralysed, dumb and half-blind and required rehabilitation under an individual programme. While some of the measures were provided by the State free of charge, a considerable part of the expenses was borne by the applicant. He applied, on many occasions, to the local state administration for compensation under Article 27 of the Law “On rehabilitation of disabled persons in Ukraine” (2005), which provided for monetary compensation to disabled persons undergoing rehabilitation under an individual programme if devices or services envisaged by that programme could not be provided or if the person in question or his or her legal representative acquired the respective device or paid for the respective service at his or her own expense. As further stipulated in that provision, the compensation was payable by local state administrations in the amounts and under the procedure defined by the Cabinet of Ministers. The applicant’s applications were, however, consistently rejected on the grounds that the Cabinet of Ministers had not developed the procedures to be followed.
The applicant’s administrative claim against the Cabinet of Ministers in that regard was rejected as unsubstantiated.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains about the authorities’ failure to comply with their obligation to compensate him for the expenses related to the rehabilitation of his disabled child as provided by Article 27 of the Law “On rehabilitation of disabled persons in Ukraine”.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a legitimate expectation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of receiving monetary compensation from the State budget for his expenses related to the rehabilitation of his disabled child (see, mutatis mutandis, Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, § 40, 26 June 2014)?
2. If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?