The applicant complained of the denial of access to higher courts.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Myshchyshyn v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 14 June 2013.<\/p>\n 2. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of the denial of access to higher courts.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the denial of access to higher courts. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 6. The Court reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person\u2019s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Furthermore, it is not for this Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a023-25, 16\u00a0February 2017, with further references).<\/p>\n 7. In the leading case of Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a040-47, 18\u00a0November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of an issue similar to that in the present case.<\/p>\n 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the application of the relevant procedural rules leading to the denial of the applicant\u2019s access to a higher court could be regarded as excessively formalistic.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a036), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 12. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the denial of access to a court;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n ViktoriyaMaradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF MYSHCHYSHYN v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 41557\/13)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nKate\u0159ina\u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand ViktoriyaMaradudina,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
\nDelivrs the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(denial of access to higher courts)<\/p>\n