CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 27 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48398/17 Borys Mytrofanovych PARINOV against Ukraine lodged on 30 June 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Borys Mytrofanovych Parinov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Lugansk. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y.L. Boychenko, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 April 2000 the applicant became a shareholder in a limited company (“the company”). On 28 April 2005 the applicant withdrew from that company. However, his share of the company’s funds was not returned to him by the other shareholder, contrary to the law in force. 1.     First set of proceedings On 10 December 2007 the applicant lodged proceedings with the domestic courts, seeking an acknowledgment that he had withdrawn from the company. On 20 December 2007 the Bryankivskyy Local Court of the Lugansk Region allowed the applicant’s claim and acknowledged that he had withdrawn from the company. On 23 April 2008, by a final ruling, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court. 2.     Second set of proceedings In June 2008 the applicant lodged another claim, seeking the recovery of his share. On 19 June 2008 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court held that the company’s assets should be seized in order to guarantee the repayment of the applicant’s share. Meanwhile the company’s assets had been sold to third parties by the other shareholder. In this respect, the applicant changed his claim, seeking the recovery of his share as well as an acknowledgment that the sale agreements relating to the company were invalid. On 2 February 2010 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. On 27 April 2010 the Lugansk Commercial Court of Appeal amended the above-mentioned judgment in part. On 18   November 2010 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the decisions of the lower court and remitted the case for fresh examination. As a result of the case’s fresh examination, on 29 December 2011, by a final judgment, the Higher Commercial Court terminated the proceedings with respect to the applicant’s claim for recovery of his share in the company, as this issue had already been examined in the course of bankruptcy proceedings (see the “Bankruptcy proceedings” section below). The applicant’s claim for an acknowledgment that the sale agreements relating to the company were invalid was rejected. 3.     Bankruptcy proceedings On 6 October 2010 the Lugansk Commercial Court started bankruptcy proceedings against the company. In the meantime, a moratorium on debt payments was applied. On 11 April 2011 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, by a final decision, recognised the applicant’s entitlement, as a creditor, to the amount of 4,100,439 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH – around 356,560 euros (EUR) at the material time), an amount that corresponded to his share in the company. On 3 February 2014 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court recognised the company as insolvent, initiated the liquidation procedure, and appointed a liquidation manager. The proceedings in the case are still ongoing. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention regarding the length of the bankruptcy proceedings. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it is impossible for him to recover his share, as a consequence of the length of the proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have his case considered within a reasonable time?   2.     In respect of his allegation under Article 6 § 1 that his case was not heard within a reasonable time, did the applicant have an effective remedy before a national authority, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s property rights (on account of his inability to recover his share due to the length of the proceedings)?