CASE OF MATSYUK v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 1751/03)
10 December 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Matsyuk v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
“The following complaints shall be outside the courts’ jurisdiction:
- ... against actions or acts of an official of a body of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecution or court with regard to which a different procedure for lodging claims is established....”
By decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 6-pп/2001 of 23 May 2001 this provision was declared unconstitutional in the part concerning lack of the courts’ jurisdiction to examine complaints “against actions or acts of an official of a body of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecution...”, where the legislation provided only for extrajudicial settlement.
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If 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.”
B. Costs and expenses
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen