This decision, **** for the Ukrainian legal system, concerns the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful delay of a state department in processing his pension documents. Despite having a prior judgment confirming the department’s liability, his subsequent civil claims for damages were dismissed by domestic courts on the grounds that he had failed to identify the correct defendant. The courts essentially forced the applicant into a procedural trap, requiring him to sue both the State Treasury and the specific state body simultaneously, despite ambiguous guidance. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that these domestic decisions were excessively formalistic. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the applicant was denied effective access to a court, as the procedural requirements imposed on him were unclear and hindered his ability to obtain the compensation to which he was entitled.
### Structure and Provisions
The judgment follows the standard structure of an ECtHR committee decision:
* **Facts:** It outlines the two sets of unsuccessful civil proceedings initiated by the applicant and the relevant domestic legal framework, specifically Article 1173 of the Civil Code and the 1995 Supreme Court Resolution.
* **Admissibility:** The Court joined the Government’s objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits, ultimately dismissing it.
* **Merits:** The Court analyzed whether the dismissal of the claims constituted a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court.
* **Article 41:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in non-pecuniary damages.
Compared to previous jurisprudence, this decision reinforces the Court’s established stance against “excessive formalism” in Ukrainian civil procedure, particularly regarding the identification of defendants in state liability cases.
### Key Provisions for Legal Practice
The most significant elements of this decision for practitioners are:
1. **Prohibition of Excessive Formalism:** The Court explicitly states that when a public entity is liable for damages, the State has a positive obligation to facilitate the identification of the correct defendant. Courts cannot dismiss claims based on technical procedural errors if the state body responsible for the harm was already involved in the proceedings (e.g., as a third party).
2. **Ambiguity of Domestic Law:** The Court highlights that Article 1173 of the Civil Code remains “couched in very general terms.” This serves as a strong argument for lawyers representing clients in similar cases: if the domestic procedural requirements for naming defendants are unclear or contradictory, the court must prioritize the substance of the claim over strict procedural adherence.
3. **The “Third Party” Argument:** The judgment confirms that if the state body responsible for the damage is already participating in the proceedings as a third party, the applicant’s failure to name them as a co-defendant should not be fatal to the claim. This is a crucial precedent for preventing the dismissal of compensation claims on purely technical grounds.
4. **State Responsibility:** The decision underscores that the State cannot use its own complex or unclear procedural rules to deny citizens the right to compensation for established unlawful actions by state authorities.
