European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

GEREGA and Others
against Ukraine

(Applications nos. 30713/05, 20930/06, 38753/06)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 26 July 2005, 16 May 2006 and 14 September 2006

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are the Ukrainian nationals. Mrs Galyna Maryanivna Gerega (no. 30713/05) was born in 1974 and lives in the Lviv Region; Mr Maksim Alekseyevich and Mrs Svetlana Vitalyevna Ponomarenko (no. 20930/06) were born in 1968 and live in Kremenchug; and Mr Yevgen Ivanovych Subot (no. 38753/06) was born in 1941 and lives in Rivne.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A.  Gerega v. Ukraine (no. 30713/05)

In 1991 Mr A. (the applicant’s relative) lodged a claim with the Staryy Sambir Court against the applicant challenging her title to a house which she had inherited under her aunt’s will. In 1993, following Mr A.’s request, the court discontinued the proceedings.

On 24 July 1997, following the request of the widow of Mr A. (who had died in the meantime), the above court re-opened the case under the newly-discovered circumstances procedure as in 1994 the courts declared Mr A. legally incapable starting from 1992.

On 6 September 2000 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv (“District Court”) delivered a judgment, which on 18 December 2000 was quashed by the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) and the case was remitted for a fresh consideration.

On 18 March 2003 the District Court ruled partly against the applicant having invalidated in part the aforementioned will.

On 23 June 2003 and 15 November 2004 (the latter ruling was served on the applicant on 29 January 2005) respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.

Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of the case under newly-discovered circumstances procedure.

B.  Ponomarenko v. Ukraine (no. 20930/06)

In August 1997 the applicants lodged a claim against the U. bank in a dispute over a contract of pledge of a car.

On 18 February 2002 the Svitlovodsk District Court (“District Court”) delivered a judgment, which on 10 November 2004, following the institution of proceedings in cassation on 6 August 2002, was quashed by the Supreme Court and the case was remitted for a fresh consideration.

On 8 November 2005 the District Court allowed the applicants’ claim in part, declared the aforementioned contract invalid and ordered the U. bank to pay the applicants certain amount in cost of the car.

On 23 December 2005 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment having rejected the applicants’ claim in part of the recovery of cost of the car, inflation losses and exemplary damages.

On 16 June 2006, following the applicants’ failure to lodge their appeal in cassation in accordance with the procedural requirements, the Supreme Court returned it unexamined.

C.  Subot v. Ukraine (no. 38753/06)

In July 1997 Mr Y. (a private individual) lodged a civil claim against the applicant in a dispute over a house and a land plot. The applicant lodged a counter-claim against Mr Y., some other private individuals and the local authorities seeking invalidation of several contracts of gift of parts of the household at issue and declaration of his title to premises he had built in that household.

On 3 July 1998 the Rivne Court delivered a judgment, which on 2 November 1998 was quashed by the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) and the case was remitted for a fresh consideration.

On 1 December 2005 the Rivne Court rejected the claim of Mr Y. as unsubstantiated, allowed the applicant’s counter-claim in part of invalidation of the contracts of gift and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim concerning declaration of title to the aforementioned premises.

On 13 April 2006 the Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment and declared that the applicant was entitled to part of the household and the land plot.

On 6 May 2006 and 23 October 2008 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the requests of the applicant and the local prosecutor (who acted in the applicant’s interests) for leave to appeal in cassation.

Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of his case under newly-discovered circumstances procedure.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

A.  Joinder of the applications

The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.

B.  Length of proceedings

The applicants complain that the length of proceedings in their cases was incompatible with the reasonable time requirement provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case files, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the applications to the respondent Government.

C.  Other complaints

The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicants’ complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning unreasonable length of proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President