Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Pozharska v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The case concerned a situation where a final judgment in favor of the applicant, Ms. Pozharska, regarding her pension recalculation, was quashed following a belated appeal by the State Pension Fund. The ECtHR concluded that reopening the proceedings and overturning the final judgment infringed the principle of legal certainty, a key component of the rule of law. The Court emphasized that departures from the principle of legal certainty are only justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, which were not present in this case. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the applicant’s complaint, which is based on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the quashing of a final judgment in her favor was unjustified and violated the principle of legal certainty. It details the initial court decision in favor of Ms. Pozharska, the subsequent appeal lodged by the State Pension Fund out of time, and the decisions of the appellate and cassation courts.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the decision, where the ECtHR assesses the merits of the application.
* It first addresses and rejects the Government’s objection regarding the six-month time limit for lodging the application.
* The Court then reiterates the importance of the principle of legal certainty as part of the rule of law.
* It references previous similar cases where it found violations in similar circumstances.
* The Court concludes that the decision to reopen the proceedings and quash the judgment in the applicant’s favor violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with the applicant’s claims for compensation.
* Ms. Pozharska sought EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
* The Court awarded EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage but rejected the claim for costs and expenses due to a lack of supporting documentation.
* **Operative Provisions:** The judgment formally declares the application admissible, holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, specifies the amount to be paid to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Principle of Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of the principle of legal certainty. National courts should be very cautious when considering reopening cases where a final judgment has been issued.
* **Justification for Reopening Cases:** Departures from the principle of legal certainty are only justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, such as the correction of fundamental defects or a miscarriage of justice. Simple errors or disagreements with the initial judgment are not sufficient grounds.
* **Time Limits for Appeals:** The decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for lodging appeals. Excuses for missing deadlines must be thoroughly substantiated, and extensions should not be granted lightly, especially when domestic law appears to prohibit such extensions.
* **Burden of Proof:** Parties seeking to overturn final judgments or extend appeal deadlines bear the burden of providing evidence to support their claims.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the fairness and legal certainty of judicial proceedings within the country, particularly in cases involving social benefits and pensions.
