Last Updated on January 11, 2024 by LawEuro
The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he missed a time-limit for lodging an appeal because the decision of the first-instance court had not been provided to him on time.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF GRYGOROV v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 44442/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grygorov v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Georges Ravarani,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 44442/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 July 2013 by an Ukrainian national, Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Grygorov (“the applicant”), who was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv and who was represented by Mr O.I. Meniv, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Olga Davydchuk, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he missed a time-limit for lodging an appeal because the decision of the first-instance court had not been provided to him on time (Article 6 § 1).
2. On 9 November 2012, in the presence of the applicant, the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv pronounced a decision by which it found the applicant guilty of a traffic offence. By the same decision the court closed proceedings against the applicant as time barred. This decision could be appealed against within a statutory ten-day time-limit from the date of the pronouncement of the decision. The applicant was not provided with a full copy of the decision despite his request.
3. On 28 November 2012 the applicant obtained a full copy of the decision.
4. On 5 December 2012 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of 9 November 2012.
5. On 13 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal refused to examine the appeal because it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. The court noted that according to the law, the appeal had to be lodged within ten days after pronouncement of the decision, even if the copy of the decision appealed against had been obtained by the applicant only on 28 November 2012.
6. On 11 January 2013 the applicant lodged his own appeal against the decision of 9 November 2012. On 6 March 2013 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal without examining it as being lodged out of time. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided any reasons for lodging his appeal only on 11 January 2013, despite the fact that he received the full copy of the decision on 28 November 2012.
7. The applicant complained that he had not had access to a court because the Court of Appeal had refused to examine his appeal (Article 6 § 1).
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. Admissibility
8. The Government submitted that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. They pointed out that the applicant had been aware of the time-limit within which the appeal could be lodged and had been present at the hearing on 9 November 2012 when the decision had been pronounced. Thus he had had an opportunity to appeal within the prescribed time-limit even before he received a full copy of the decision. The applicant maintained his complaint, stating that he had not had an opportunity to appeal before he received a full copy of the decision.
9. The Court considers that the Government’s objection regarding admissibility is closely linked to the merits of the case. It therefore joins it to the merits. It follows that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
II. merits
10. The general principles applicable to the present case are summarised in Karakutsya v. Ukraine (no. 18986/06, §§ 44-45 and 53, 16 February 2017).
11. The Court considers that the applicant could not have been expected to lodge an appeal before he had received and familiarised himself with the full text of the first-instance court’s decision of 9 November 2012. By failing to provide the applicant with the first-instance court’s decision promptly, the authorities deprived him of the opportunity to appeal within the prescribed time-limit. The Court also points out that in the Ukrainian legislation there is no provision for exemption from the rule establishing the ten-day time-limit for lodging an appeal, irrespective of the reasons a party may give for being late.
12. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
14. The Government contested that claim.
15. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Ukrainian hryvnias at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller Mārtiņš Mits
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply