Published on 5 February 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 32123/19
Volodymyr Valeriyovych MARDAR against Ukraine
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 16 January 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The domestic courts declined jurisdiction to examine the merits of the applicants’ actions regarding disputes which arguably had a significant effect on their private lives, reputation and/or employment prospects. The applicants complain of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that account. The relevant facts are set out in the appended table.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the present applications concern disputes over the applicants’ “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Lovric v. Croatia, no. 38458/15, §§ 51-58, 4 April 2017, and Ali Rıza and Others v. Turkey, nos. 30226/10 and 4 others, §§ 155 and 160, 28 January 2020)?
2. If so, was the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the merits of the applicants’ actions compatible with the guarantee of Article 6 § 1, construed in the light of the rule of law, that everyone should have the right to bring any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations before a court or tribunal (see, among other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18, and Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, §§ 126-27 and 150-55, 21 June 2016)? In particular, did the limitations on the applicants’ access to domestic courts restrict or reduce it in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court was impaired? Did the limitations on the applicant’s right of access to a court pursue a legitimate aim? Was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved in that regard (see, additionally, Suda v. the Czech Republic, no. 1643/06, §§ 50-55, 28 October 2010; Lovric, cited above, §§ 69-74; and Abramova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 41988/08, §§ 43-49, 18 December 2018)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Notes
1.
32123/19
07/06/2019
Mardar v. Ukraine
Volodymyr Valeriyovych MARDAR
1990
Tatarbunary Odesa region
Ukrainian
Represented by
Ganna
Yuriyivna
STYRKUL
On 11 January 2016 a commission, established by the Odessa Department of the State Labour Agency, found that during his work as an employee at a private company the applicant had breached safety regulations, which had resulted in his colleague’s death in November 2015. The applicant, who had been dismissed from that company in December 2015 for having failed to appear at work, challenged the commission’s findings before the civil courts. Ultimately, by the decision of 9 January 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed his action as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had no right to challenge those findings in court; the relevant law entitled only the employer, representatives of the social security fund and the trade union, and the victim’s family members to bring this type of actions in court.
2.
51402/19
23/09/2019
Kalugin v. Ukraine
Borys
Igorovych
KALUGIN
1983
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Represented by
Oleg
Stanislavovych OLIYNYK
On 24 September 2015 the Board of the Basketball Federation of Ukraine (BFU), a member of the International Basketball Federation (FIBA), which organises international and national basketball competitions in Ukraine, decided to permanently disqualify the applicant, a professional basketball referee at the time, from all competitions organised under the auspices of the BFU, having found that he had violated the principle of fair play during one of the competitions. In 2016 the applicant challenged that decision in courts. By the final decision of 27 March 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s action as inadmissible mainly on the grounds that the BFU enjoyed organisational autonomy, that its decision to disqualify a member concerned its “internal matters” not subject to a judicial review and that according to the FBU’s Statute disputes concerning the application of the basketball official rules and principles of fair play were to be brought to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (CAS). According to the applicant, the relevant arbitration clause was inserted in the Statute in December 2015 and did not concern the BFU Board’s decisions, which thus did not fall within the CAS’ jurisdiction.
3.
2346/23
21/12/2022
Sulima v. Ukraine
Yevgen Mykolayovych SULIMA
1968
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Represented by Volodymyr Volodymyrovych MATSKO
On 15 and 17 November 2017 the National Academy of the Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (APCU), a State entity, decided to discontinue the applicant’s membership therein and the payment of monthly allowances to him in that connection. In April 2018 the applicant challenged those decisions in courts. By the final decision of 14 September 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s action as inadmissible mainly on the grounds that the APCU enjoyed organisational autonomy and its decision to expel a member concerned its “internal matters” not subject to a judicial review.