The applicants alleged that the opening of appeal proceedings and the quashing of a judgment in their favour breached the principle of legal certainty under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant in application no.\u00a042968\/15 also alleged that the above-mentioned actions breached Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Zavaliy and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by the applicants listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaints set out in \u00a7 1 below to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by their then Agent, Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Lishchyna, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applicants alleged that the opening of appeal proceedings and the quashing of a judgment in their favour breached the principle of legal certainty under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant in application no.\u00a042968\/15 also alleged that the above-mentioned actions breached Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n 2. The Government contested those allegations.<\/p>\n 3. The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 6. The Court has already found violations of the principle of legal certainty in similar circumstances in Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no.\u00a03236\/03, 3\u00a0April 2008) and Ustimenko v. Ukraine (no. 32053\/13, 29\u00a0October 2015). Having regard to the circumstances of the present applications as set out in the appended table, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The courts, in breach of the principle of legal certainty, accepted for examination, without giving sufficient reasons, and allowed appeals lodged outside the statutory ten-day time-limit for appealing.<\/p>\n 7. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.<\/p>\n III. REMAINING COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. The applicant in application no. 42968\/15 also raised a complaint under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court has examined this part of the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n 9. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. Having regard to the documents in its possession and in view of the nature of the violation found, the Court considers it reasonable to award the amounts indicated in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the remainder of the claims.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of application no. 42968\/15 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Martina Keller \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Ivana Jeli\u0107 ________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications\u00a0raising complaints under Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (breach of the principle of legal certainty):<\/p>\n (in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n v. Ukraine<\/td>\n (sent to the applicant on 23\/06\/2014)<\/td>\n
\nCASE OF ZAVALIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 23342\/14 and 3 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n20 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, President,
\nGanna Yudkivska,
\nArnfinn B\u00e5rdsen, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Case name<\/strong><\/td>\n Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\nDate of the first instance court decision<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of the appeal submission<\/strong><\/td>\n Final decision<\/strong><\/td>\n Costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 23342\/14<\/td>\n Zavaliy<\/p>\n 15\/04\/2014<\/td>\n Marya Fedorivna ZAVALIY
\n1991
\nDnipropetrovsk
\nUkrainian<\/strong><\/td>\n24\/06\/2011<\/td>\n 17\/10\/2011<\/td>\n Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 05\/09\/2013<\/p>\n 25<\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 42968\/15<\/td>\n Tetelbaum v. Ukraine<\/td>\n 20\/08\/2015<\/td>\n Dmytro Mykhaylovych TETELBAUM
\n1959
\nKharkiv
\nUkrainian<\/strong><\/td>\n19\/05\/2014<\/td>\n 23\/02\/2015<\/td>\n High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters, 14\/05\/2015<\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 1686\/17<\/td>\n Mozgovyy v. Ukraine<\/td>\n 22\/12\/2016<\/td>\n Volodymyr Volodymyrovych MOZGOVYY
\n1965
\nZhytomyr
\nUkrainian<\/strong><\/td>\n14\/04\/2016<\/td>\n 04\/07\/2016<\/td>\n Zhytromyr Administrative Court of Appeal, 15\/09\/2016<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 64516\/17<\/td>\n Oleksyuk v. Ukraine<\/td>\n 17\/08\/2017<\/td>\n Ganna Ivanivna OLEKSYUK
\n1954
\nKharkiv
\nUkrainian<\/strong><\/td>\n06\/06\/2016<\/td>\n 06\/01\/2017<\/td>\n Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 22\/02\/2017<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n