FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 13249\/11
\nAnatoliy Vasylyovych VIDANOV
\nagainst Ukraine<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nGannaYudkivska,
\nLadoChanturia, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 February 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a claim seeking an increase in his pension as a war veteran.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 August 2010 Kyiv City Court of Appeal, having examined the appeal, quashed the first-instance court\u2019s judgment and rejected the applicant\u2019s claim. This decision was final.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In 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\u2019s submissions and had, therefore, not been given an opportunity adequately to participate in those proceedings, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 March 2018 the applicant\u2019s 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 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court. In particular, the applicant\u2019s 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\u2011founded. It was noted that there was no indication that the interpretation of the domestic law by the national courts was arbitrary in any way.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant had been aware of the opposing party\u2019s appeal and had failed to exercise due diligence to keep himself informed of the proceedings.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0In his reply to the Government\u2019s observations the applicant stated, insofar as relevant (there follow, verbatim, the applicant\u2019s submissions, made in English, preserving his original grammar and highlighting): \u201cMy 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]\u201d.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s comments in that respect, commenting only on the outcome of the proceedings in terms of his pension rights.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0It 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, \u00a7\u00a7 39-41, 19 February 2009, Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 98-100, 20 May 2010, and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329\/12 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25, 27\u00a0June 2017).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may not be regarded as wishing to pursue that complaint, within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 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\u2019s list.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0To 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\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 (b) and 4 of the Convention as \u201csubstantially the same\u201d (see, for example, Isayev v. Ukraine, no. 28827\/02, \u00a7 46, 28 May 2009, and Lazarenko and Others, cited above, \u00a7 26).<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.<\/p>\n Milan Bla\u0161ko\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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