European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27317/08
Svitlana Andriyivna DOVGOPOL
against Ukraine
lodged on 30 May 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Svitlana Andriyivna Dovgopol, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Manevychi, Vinnytsia Region.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 10 January 2006 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Manevychi Town Court (“the Manevychi Court”) against the local social security department seeking recalculation and recovery of the benefits for which her family was eligible as victims of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster.

On 5 April 2006 the Manevychi Court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. It noted that the applicant was receiving the relevant payments in accordance with the applicable laws and bylaws.

On 21 July 2006 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.

On 20 September 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal on points of law, concluding that the case was of an “administrative” rather than a “civil” nature. It therefore referred the appeal to the Higher Administrative Court.

On 9 October 2007 the Higher Administrative Court also declined jurisdiction, asserting that the Supreme Court was the appropriate forum for the case.

On 19 March 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 5 April and 21 July 2006, concluding that the lower courts had wrongly examined the case under the civil procedure, when it should have been examined under the administrative procedure. The Supreme Court therefore terminated the proceedings.

B.  Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic legislation is quoted in the judgment in Bulanov and Kupchik v. Ukraine (nos. 7714/06 and 23654/08, §§ 20-24, 9 December 2010).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant raises several complaints with reference to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Firstly, she complains that the Chornobyl victim benefits paid to her by the State authorities are too low in breach of the Constitution. Secondly, the applicant complains that the domestic courts, relying on the Government’s bylaws, were dependent on the executive authority and lacked impartiality. Thirdly, she complains about the overall length of the proceedings. And lastly, the applicant complains that given the courts’ failure to adjudicate on her claim she was denied access to justice.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was she unfairly denied access to court because of the jurisdiction dispute?