FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23227/22
Galyna Mykhaylivna KOZMA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 December 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2022,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Galyna Mykhaylivna Kozma, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in the city of Chernivtsi, Ukraine. She was represented by Mr B. Fokiy, a lawyer practising in Chernivtsi.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 April 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted into fraud committed by unidentified persons. On 23 June 2014 the applicant was notified of suspicion against her. On 15 February 2019 a local court found the applicant guilty but absolved her from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. The judgment was upheld in appeal on 1 December 2020 and in cassation on 8 September 2021. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing before the Supreme Court.
According to the applicant, her lawyer received a copy of the final judgment on 29 September 2021.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had not been afforded an effective remedy in this connection. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that the applicant had failed to submit her case to the Court within the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing on 8 September 2021, when the court had delivered the final judgment.
The applicant stated that six-month period should be calculated from the date of the receipt of a copy of the final judgment.
According to the Court’s case-law, the six-month period cannot start running until the applicant and/or his or her representative have effective and sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision (see Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 31, 30 November 1999; Koç and Tosun v. Turkey (dec.) 23852/04, 13 November 2008). The Court usually interprets this principle as implying that the applicant should be served with the final decision. However, this rule should not be interpreted in an excessively rigid manner. In the case of Osman Baydemir and Others v. Turkey [Committee] (dec.) (no. 52428/08, 16 May 2017), the Court took as relevant the fact that the applicants and their lawyers were present for the oral notification of the final judgment and took the date of the hearing as the starting point of the six-month time-limit, since the applicants had “effective and sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision” even before receiving the decision in a written form. The Court has also pointed out that from the date of the decision the applicants became aware that the decision was not a subject of cassation appeal (see Osman Baydemir and Others, cited above, and, by contrast, Sławiński v. Poland [Committee], no. 61039/16, § 22-26, 15 April 2021).
Returning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant’s lawyer was present at the Supreme Court’s hearing, thus the lawyer knew that the final decision was rendered on that day. From that date she had been aware of the end date of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, given the subject matter of the case, the applicant’s lawyer had sufficient knowledge of the final decision in the case already at the court hearing and, therefore, it was on 8 September 2021 when the six-month time-limit had started running, while the application form was only submitted by the applicant to the Court on 25 March 2022.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the application has been lodged belatedly 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 18 January 2024.
Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
Acting Deputy Registrar President