Published on 15 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 15707/23
UKRAYINSKYY MUZYCHNYY ALYANS, GS against Ukraine
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
Three applications lodged by the same applicant company, accredited for a limited period of three years to collect and distribute remuneration for private copying of audiovisual works, concern the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the merits of its claims for recovery of remuneration arrears, related penalties and inflation losses – approximately 1,200,000 euros (EUR) in total – regarding the previous accreditation period, which ended in 2018 due to legislative changes. The courts held that the applicant company lacked standing as it had lost its accreditation in 2020, while some of the proceedings had already been pending. The relevant details pertaining to each set of domestic proceedings are set out in the appended table. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the lack of access to a court and of divergencies in the case-law relied upon by domestic courts. It further complains about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of its inability to recover the amounts allegedly due to it. In addition, the applicant company relies on Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the present applications concern disputes over the applicant company’s “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the domestic courts refused to examine its claims on the merits (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017)?
3. Did the applicant company have a right or “legitimate expectations” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, regarding any amounts it claimed in the domestic proceedings?
4. If so, has the applicant company been afforded judicial protection for its right or “legitimate expectations”, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Dabić v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, § 47-60, 18 March 2021).
ADDITIONAL QUESTION REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 29591/24
Was the length of the debt recovery proceedings, which lasted from 27 August 2015 to 23 May 2024, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Notes
1.
15707/23
Ukrayinskyy muzychnyy alyans, GS v. Ukraine
17/03/2023
UKRAYINSKYY MUZYCHNYY ALYANS, GS
2001
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Yuriyivna NEVOLINA
Proceedings initiated on 1 June 2018 and finally decided by the Supreme Court on 24 November 2022.
2.
29591/24
Ukrayinskyy muzychnyy alyans, GS v. Ukraine
25/09/2024
The same
The same
Proceedings initiated on 25 August 2015 and finally decided by the Supreme Court on 23 May 2024.
Proceedings initiated on 25 February 2021 and finally decided by the Commercial Court of Kyiv on 10 September 2024.
3.
31332/24
Ukrayinskyy muzychnyy alyans, GS v. Ukraine
06/10/2024
The same
The same
Proceedings initiated on 25 February 2020 and finally decided by the Supreme Court on 6 June 2024.
Proceedings initiated on 3 February 2021 and finally decided by the Commercial Court of Kyiv on 30 September 2024.