12869/21

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF UKRSPETSMET-V, TOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 12869/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of UKRSPETSMET-V, TOV v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Andreas Zünd, President,  Diana Sârcu,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 February 2021. 2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.  The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicant complained of the denial of access to higher courts. It also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 5.  The applicant complained principally under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the denial of access to higher courts. 6.  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 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’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). 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, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references). 7.  In the leading cases of Melnyk v. Ukraine (no. 23436/03, §§ 20-31, 28 March 2006); Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010); and Kravchenko v. Ukraine (no. 46673/06, §§ 37-50, 30 June 2016), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case. 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court. 9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.  The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above, § 36), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.   FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the denial of access to higher courts; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (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; (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (denial of access to higher courts) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of registration   Specific irregularity complained of Case-law Facts and relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] 12869/21 19/02/2021 UKRSPETSMET-V, TOV   unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations, in particular related to the interpretation and application of the procedural rules on time-limits for lodging an appeal before a higher court Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06, §§ 39-47, 18 November 2010 In 2019, upon approval of a local council, the applicant company rented a land plot. Subsequently, S. lodged a claim against the applicant company seeking invalidation of the rent agreement. On 04/02/2020 the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Region dismissed the claim. On 02/07/2020 the Dnipro Central Commercial Court of Appeal quashed the above decision and allowed the claim in full, having found that pursuant to the domestic law the land plots in the State property could only be leased via a public auction, which had never taken place in that case. On 24/10/2020 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law along with a request to renew the time-limit for contesting the court’s decision. The applicant company noted that in the proceedings before the first-instance court it had asked the court to send all correspondence to an address other than the one registered after the company. When opening the proceedings upon the appeal of the claimant, the appellate court ignored the above fact and sent its ruling and a copy of the appeal to another address (the officially registered company address). This correspondence was returned due to the expiration of storage period. The following rulings and the decision of 02/07/2020 were also sent to the above address. The applicant company stressed that the appellate court had been aware of the correspondence address since it had been indicated in the case-file materials transferred from the lower court and the first-instance court’s decision had been sent to the indicated address. Given the above, the applicant company asked to renew the respective time-limit since it only found out about the appellate court’s decision on 10/09/2020 from a letter of the city council. By the final ruling of 17/11/2020 the Supreme Court rejected the above request and refused to open the cassation proceedings, having concluded that the grounds advanced by the applicant company were not valid. Art. 6 (1) – fairness of the proceedings: a breach of the principle of equality of arms due to the failure of the appellate court to send summons and documents to the applicant company’s correct address, which deprived the company’s representative of a possibility to participate in the proceedings on an equal footing with the other party to the proceedings (see Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 36 and 43, 27 June 2017). 1,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.