Published on 23 March 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 19969/20
Dmytro Vyacheslavovych POKHYL
against Ukraine
lodged on 22 April 2020
communicated on 5 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the issues of a tribunal established by law and lack of reasoning in civil proceedings.
The applicant is an owner of a one-third share in a hotel in Berdiansk (Azov Sea region). Between 2006 and 2008 he leased this share to a certain B., who provided hotel services.
In June 2015 the applicant lodged a civil action against B., seeking compensation for loss of profit, arguing that B. had continued to use the premises concerned after 2008 until 2013.
On 26 October 2017 the Zaporizhyzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the first instance court that B. had unlawfully used the applicant’s share of the hotel during the period in question, and awarded him compensation in the amount of 993,247.48 of Ukrainian hryvnyas (around 31,532 euros).
On 23 October 2019 the Supreme Court, upon an appeal on points of law lodged by B., overturned the decision of the appellate court as to the compensation. Having re-assessed the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that the applicant had failed to prove that B. had used his share of the hotel.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction when re-assessed the facts which had been established by the lower courts and, therefore, was not a “tribunal established by law”. He further complains that the Supreme Court failed to give reasoning for its decision of 23 October 2019 which was, therefore, arbitrary.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
(i) in particular, was the Supreme Court a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, §§ 24-28, 20 July 2006; Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, §§ 44-45, 5 October 2017)?
(ii) did the Supreme Court provide sufficient reasons for its decision of 23 October 2019 and was its decision “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)?