Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13249/11
Anatoliy Vasylyovych VIDANOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
GannaYudkivska,
LadoChanturia, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 February 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr AnatoliyVasylyovychVidanov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Kyiv. He was represented before the Court by Mr V.O. Nosal, residing in Kyiv.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant lodged a claim seeking an increase in his pension as a war veteran.
5. On 23 October 2009 a first-instance court allowed his claim. The pension authority appealed. In his initial application to the Court the applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the appeal and of its subsequent examination by the Court of Appeal.
6. On 31 August 2010 Kyiv City Court of Appeal, having examined the appeal, quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim. This decision was final.
COMPLAINTS
7. In his application form the applicant complained, in particular, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that he had been deprived of an increase in his pension, contrary to domestic law. He also complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he had not been duly informed of the proceedings on appeal in his case and of the opposing party’s submissions and had, therefore, not been given an opportunity adequately to participate in those proceedings, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.
THE LAW
8. The applicant complained of violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …”
9. On 26 March 2018 the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged failure duly to inform him of the proceedings on appeal in his case was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. In particular, the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was deprived of the increase in his pension, allegedly contrary to domestic law, were rejected as manifestly ill‑founded. It was noted that there was no indication that the interpretation of the domestic law by the national courts was arbitrary in any way.
10. The Government submitted that the applicant had been aware of the opposing party’s appeal and had failed to exercise due diligence to keep himself informed of the proceedings.
11. In his reply to the Government’s observations the applicant stated, insofar as relevant (there follow, verbatim, the applicant’s submissions, made in English, preserving his original grammar and highlighting): “My rights were rudely violated by the Government of Ukraine, and I was refused from accruing the veteran addition of my pension, established by Law [there followed citations of various domestic legislative provisions concerning pensions]”.
12. The Court considers that the applicant’s submissions made after communication indicate that the complaint which had been communicated to the Government is of no concern to him. He failed to develop that complaint or to respond to the Government’s comments in that respect, commenting only on the outcome of the proceedings in terms of his pension rights.
13. It follows that, after communication, the applicant did not maintain the complaint which had been communicated to the Government (compare Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 16447/04, §§ 39-41, 19 February 2009, Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, §§ 98-100, 20 May 2010, and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 22-25, 27 June 2017).
14. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may not be regarded as wishing to pursue that complaint, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which would require the continued consideration of the complaint. In view of the above, this complaint should be struck out of the Court’s list.
15. To the extent that the applicant purported to reintroduce his complaint that he was deprived of the increase in his pension contrary to domestic law, the Court notes that it had already been declared inadmissible (see paragraph 9 above). In these circumstances, the Court concludes that his renewed complaint must, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention as “substantially the same” (see, for example, Isayev v. Ukraine, no. 28827/02, § 46, 28 May 2009, and Lazarenko and Others, cited above, § 26).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decidesto strike out of its list the application insofar as it concerns the alleged violation of the principle of equality of arms and declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.
Milan Blaško Síofra O’Leary
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply