Published on 5 January 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 49266/18
Galyna Grygorivna MELNYCHENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 11 October 2018
communicated on 10 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns court proceedings relating to the early recovery of an unpaid loan by the applicant.
On 14 June 2012 the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv ruled in favour of the bank that had provided a loan to the applicant and ordered the applicant and her guarantor to pay the outstanding loan of 115,563 dollars (“USD”) with interest of USD 32,705.13 (calculated until 24 February 2011) and imposed a monetary penalty of 195,929 Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”). The decision became final and binding for the applicant. However, the applicant did not repay her debt.
On 30 October 2013 a company (“the Company”), to which the debt had been assigned in November 2012, requested the applicant to pay the amount of USD 293,417.94, which comprised of the outstanding loan of USD 115,563 with interest of USD 70,827.80 and a penalty of USD 107,027.14.
On 6 December 2013, at a request of the Company, a notary endorsed the mortgage agreement regarding the applicant’s flat as a guarantee for the loan, in order to satisfy its claim against the applicant for the sum of UAH 1,493,821.67 (around USD 186, 961 at the relevant time).
In June 2014 the applicant challenged the notarial endorsement in court. After the case had been repeatedly heard by courts of three instances, including the Supreme Court, whose panels of five judges had twice included Judge K., the applicant’s action was ultimately dismissed on 4 July 2018. While the applicant relied on the effects of the decision of 15 July 2015 of the Kyiv Court of Appeal (see below), her arguments were not addressed by the national courts.
In the meantime, in September 2014, the Company had sued the applicant and her guarantor in court, seeking payment of the debt with interests calculated until August 2014. Although the court of first instance had partially granted the action in April 2015, its decision had been overturned by the Kyiv Court of Appeal on 15 July 2015 on the grounds that the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv had ordered the early payment of the debt in its judgment of 14 June 2012, so the term of the loan agreement had expired and no interest or penalty should have been calculated after that decision.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court, which rendered the judgment on 4 July 2018, could not be considered as an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” in view of the repeated participation of Judge K. in the examination of her case and that the decisions of the national courts were arbitrary and lacking reasoning.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
(i) in particular, having regard to the decisions of the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv of 14 June 2012 and of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 15 July 2015, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and were their decisions “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61‑64, ECHR 2015; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 185, 6 November 2018, with further references)?
(ii) was the Supreme Court an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of the above article (see Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211-213, 1 December 2020)?