I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KIRYEYEV v. UKRAINE.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-08-28
  • Communication date: 2024-08-26
  • Application number(s): 56234/16
  • Country:   UKR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 14, 18, P7-4
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Access to court)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.718574
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 16 September 2024 The application mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to court regarding his action of 17 February 2016 challenging his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18 January 2016.
The decree was issued on the basis of the High Council of Justice’s (“the HCJ”) decision of 5 November 2015 finding that the applicant had committed a “breach of oath” when authorising the arrest of a former Prime-Minister in 2011 and proposing to dismiss him from the judicial position.
In so far as the applicant’s action concerned the HCJ’s decision of 5 November 2015, it was rejected as lodged after the expiry of the statutory one-month time-limit initially by the Higher Administrative Court’s (“the HAC”) ruling of 22 February 2016 and eventually, in a separate set of the proceedings instituted by the applicant in March 2016, by the final decision of the Supreme Court (“the SC”) of 11 October 2016.
The courts dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had been informed of the HCJ’s decision of 5 November 2015 only on 8 February 2016 because he had been away from his residence “trying to avoid political persecution” since late February 2014.
The courts found that the applicant must have become aware of the HCJ’s decision when it had been published on the HCJ’s official Internet site on 1 December 2015.
The courts also found no evidence of the alleged “political persecution”.
In so far as the applicant’s action concerned the President’s Decree of 18 January 2016, the HAC rejected it as unsubstantiated on 2 March 2016 finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers.
On 4 April 2016 the SC rejected the applicant’s appeal against the HAC’s judgment of 2 March 2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 12 March 2016.
The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 2 March 2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date.
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the courts’ refusal to examine his claims and appeals on the merits.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that his action against the decision of the High Council of Justice of 5 November 2015 and his appeal against the judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of 2 March 2016 were not examined on the merits for having been lodged out of time (see Melnyk v. Ukraine, no.
23436/03, §§ 22-31, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no.
8863/06, §§ 37-47, 18 November 2010; and Kravchenko v. Ukraine, no.
46673/06, §§ 39-50, 30 June 2016)?
Published on 16 September 2024 The application mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to court regarding his action of 17 February 2016 challenging his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18 January 2016.
The decree was issued on the basis of the High Council of Justice’s (“the HCJ”) decision of 5 November 2015 finding that the applicant had committed a “breach of oath” when authorising the arrest of a former Prime-Minister in 2011 and proposing to dismiss him from the judicial position.
In so far as the applicant’s action concerned the HCJ’s decision of 5 November 2015, it was rejected as lodged after the expiry of the statutory one-month time-limit initially by the Higher Administrative Court’s (“the HAC”) ruling of 22 February 2016 and eventually, in a separate set of the proceedings instituted by the applicant in March 2016, by the final decision of the Supreme Court (“the SC”) of 11 October 2016.
The courts dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had been informed of the HCJ’s decision of 5 November 2015 only on 8 February 2016 because he had been away from his residence “trying to avoid political persecution” since late February 2014.
The courts found that the applicant must have become aware of the HCJ’s decision when it had been published on the HCJ’s official Internet site on 1 December 2015.
The courts also found no evidence of the alleged “political persecution”.
In so far as the applicant’s action concerned the President’s Decree of 18 January 2016, the HAC rejected it as unsubstantiated on 2 March 2016 finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers.
On 4 April 2016 the SC rejected the applicant’s appeal against the HAC’s judgment of 2 March 2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 12 March 2016.
The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 2 March 2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date.
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the courts’ refusal to examine his claims and appeals on the merits.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KIRYEYEV AND LIMAN v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 56234/16 and 27010/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
28 August 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiryeyev and Liman 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 3 July 2025,
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
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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 higher courts. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In application no. 56234/16, the applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about his dismissal and the courts’ reasoning related to his challenge of that measure, including when rejecting his appeals. 11. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 7-9 above, the Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal issue raised by the case and that there is no need to pursue the examination of the aforementioned complaints (see, for a similar approach, Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain, no. 53193/21 and 5 others, § 150, 22 June 2023). 12. 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 to the applicant in application no. 27010/24. As concerns the applicant in application no. 56234/16, the Court makes no award since he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no. 27010/24, 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd 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 for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980

Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962

Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KIRYEYEV AND LIMAN v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 56234/16 and 27010/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
28 August 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiryeyev and Liman 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 3 July 2025,
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
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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 higher courts. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. In application no. 56234/16, the applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about his dismissal and the courts’ reasoning related to his challenge of that measure, including when rejecting his appeals. 11. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 7-9 above, the Court considers that it has already addressed the main legal issue raised by the case and that there is no need to pursue the examination of the aforementioned complaints (see, for a similar approach, Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain, no. 53193/21 and 5 others, § 150, 22 June 2023). 12. 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 to the applicant in application no. 27010/24. As concerns the applicant in application no. 56234/16, the Court makes no award since he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no. 27010/24, 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd 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 for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980

Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962

Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250

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 for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56234/16
20/09/2016
Rodion Volodymyrovych KIRYEYEV
1980

Vak Volodymyr Ivanovych
Yagotyn
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006;
Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a higher court in relation to his dismissal from the post of a judge pursuant to the President’s Decree of 18/01/2016. The applicant challenged his dismissal before the courts, but on 02/03/2016 the High Administrative Court (“HAC”) dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated finding that the President had lawfully exercised his relevant powers. On 04/04/2016 the Supreme Court (“SC”) rejected the applicant’s appeal of 18/03/2016 against the HAC’s judgment of 02/03/2016 as lodged out of time and refused his request for an extension of the statutory ten-day time-limit, in which he claimed that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 12/03/2016. The SC noted that the applicant’s lawyer had been present at the hearing of 02/03/2016 during which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced and that the time-limit in question had started to run on that date. -
-
27010/24
11/09/2024
Nadiya Sergiyivna LIMAN
1962

Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations
Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, 28 March 2006; Mushta v. Ukraine, no. 8863/06,
18 November 2010;
Kravchenko v. Ukraine,
no. 46673/06,
30 June 2016
On 16/01/2024 a local court found that the applicant had violated customs rules and had to be held liable. According to the Unified State Registry of the Courts Decisions, the decision of 16/01/2024 was published on 12/04/2024. The applicant appealed on 24/04/24 arguing that she had only obtained a copy of the above decision on 16/04/2024. By a final decision of 10/07/2024, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as lodged out of time as well as her request for an extension of the applicable ten-day time limit, reasoning that the applicant’s representative was present at the hearing of 16/01/2024. 1,500
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.