The case concerns the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s interpretation of a provision of domestic law in a manner that was allegedly unforeseeable and contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The dispute arose between Ukrkava TOV (a Ukrainian company) and the State Savings Bank regarding a loan agreement and related mortgage.The key issue was the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the statutory time limit for notarization of mortgage documents. According to Section 88 of the Notary Act, if both parties were legal entities, the time limit was one year, while in other cases it was three years. The Supreme Court decided to apply a uniform three-year limit regardless of the parties’ status, despite the clear and unambiguous wording of the law.The European Court of Human Rights found that this reinterpretation violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) because:
- The Supreme Court’s interpretation contradicted the clear and unambiguous text of the law
- The change resembled a statutory amendment rather than resolution of conflicting case law
- There were no compelling reasons provided for such radical reinterpretation
- The Supreme Court did not consider the effects on legal certainty
- The interpretation made the outcome of proceedings unforeseeable
The Court emphasized that while courts can develop case law, they cannot simply refuse to apply unambiguous laws as a means of pressuring legislators to change them. The separation of powers between Parliament and judiciary must be respected.
