55919/16;60298/16;77527/16

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KLYMUKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 55919/16 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 October 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Klymukh and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Kateřina Šimáčková, President,  Mykola Gnatovskyy,  Artūrs Kučs, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 5.  The applicants complained of the denial of access to higher courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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 Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI) and Mushta v. Ukraine (no. 8863/06, §§ 40-47, 18 November 2010), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 applicants’ right of access to a court. 9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gavrilov, cited above § 36, and Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the denial of access to higher courts; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Kateřina Šimáčková  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (denial of access to higher courts) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Specific irregularity complained of Case-law Facts and relevant information Amount awarded non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]     55919/16 13/09/2016 Ivan Vasylyovych KLYMUKH   Popelchuk Sergiy Olegovych Lviv unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI; Malahov v. Moldova, no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007; and Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19 June 2007, Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06, 18 November 2010, In 2015 the applicants instituted proceedings before the Commercial Court of the Lviv Region against a private company and its shareholders claiming compensation for the allegedly unlawful refusal to restore the applicants’ status as shareholders of that company. On 23 December 2015 the court, having exempted the applicants from the obligation to pay the relevant court fees and having examined their claims on the merits, rejected them as unfounded. The applicants lodged separate appeals with the Lviv Commercial Court of Appeal against that judgment and requested it to exempt them from paying the court fee of approximately 890 euros for each appeal, stating that they could not pay that sum given that their only monthly income (pension) was approximately 130 and 70 euros, respectively. They provided copies of various documents in that regard. On 25 March 2016 the appellate court refused to examine the appeals on the merits, finding no “exceptional circumstances” justifying the requested exemption from paying the relevant court fee. On 14 June 2016 the Higher Commercial Court upheld that decision. 1,500     60298/16 13/09/2016 Petro Petrovych DURDYNETS   Popelchuk Sergiy Olegovych Lviv 1,500     77527/16 03/12/2016 Olena Vasylivna SUPRUNENKO       In July 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Higher Specialised Court of Civil and Criminal Matters (“the HSCCM”) against the judgement of the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal of 21 June 2016 allowing a private person’s claim regarding the applicant’s title to a part of a house. The applicant requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee of approximately 135 euros, stating that she was unemployed, took care of a minor child, had no other assets than the house the title to which was the subject-matter of the proceedings and that her family’s only income was her husband’s monthly salary not exceeding 70 euros. She provided copies of various documents in that regard. On 31 August 2016 the HSCCM refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal, holding generally that she had not demonstrated that she had had no money to pay the court fee. 1,500 -   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.