CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2019

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 26 March 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68470/12 Vadim Nikolayevich NEYMAN against Ukraine lodged on 8 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vadim Nikolayevich Neyman, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Krasnyy Luch. He was represented before the Court by Mr D.A. Kalikhmanov, a lawyer practising in Krasnyy Luch. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 August 2011 the Krasnyy Luch Local Court (“the Local Court”) allowed a claim by the applicant and ordered the Krasnyy Luch Department of the Pension Fund (“the Pension Fund Department”) to recalculate the applicant’s pension and to pay the pension arrears. No appeal was lodged against the judgment, which therefore became final on 16 August 2011. On the same day the Local Court issued a writ of execution. On 23 August 2011 the Krasnyy Luch Department of the State Bailiffs Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5   August 2011. On 9 November 2011 the Pension Fund Department lodged an appeal with the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) against the judgment of 5 August 2011. It indicated, without providing any particular details, that it had not been notified of the time and place of the delivery of the judgment and thus could not have lodged an appeal on time. It therefore requested a renewal of the time-limit for appeal. By a ruling of 23 December 2011, the Court of Appeal opened appeal proceedings in the applicant’s case. The ruling contained no reference to the fact that the appeal had been lodged out of time and that the defendant had requested a renewal of the time-limit for appeal. By a letter of 13 March 2012, the Court of Appeal sent the applicant a copy of its ruling of 23 December 2011 and a copy of the appeal lodged by the Pension Fund Department. The applicant received that letter on 20   March 2012. On 10 April 2012 the Court of Appeal overruled the judgment of 5   August 2012 and found against the applicant. The court indicated that a cassation appeal could be lodged against its decision with the Higher Administrative Court. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final and binding judgment of 5 August 2011, which had thus deprived him of the award under that judgment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant introduce his complaint about the reopening of the proceedings in his case by way of extension of the time-limit for an ordinary appeal within the time-limit of six months as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Were there effective domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the reopening of the proceedings in his case by way of extension of the time-limit for an ordinary appeal and, if yes, what exactly were those remedies? If there were domestic remedies, did the applicant exhaust them as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? If he did not exhaust them, did he have a realistic opportunity to exhaust them?