CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44442/13 Mykola Mykolayovych GRYGOROV against Ukraine lodged on 1 July 2013 communicated on 23 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he missed the time-limit for lodging his appeal because the decision of the first-instance court had not been provided to him on time. On 9 November 2012 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv found the applicant guilty of a traffic offence. This decision could be appealed against within a statutory ten-day time-limit from the date of the pronouncement of the decision. On 28 November 2012 the applicant obtained a copy of this decision. On 5 December 2012 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of 9 November 2012. On 13 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal refused to examine the appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer as being lodged outside the statutory time-limit. The court noted that according to the law the appeal had to be lodged within ten days after pronouncement of the decision, even if the copy of the decision appealed against had been obtained by the applicant only on 28 November 2012. On 11 January 2013 the applicant lodged his own appeal against the decision of 9 November 2012. On 6 March 2013 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal without examination as being lodged out of time. The applicant complains that he did not have access to a court because the court of appeal refused to examine his appeal (Article 6 § 1). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zavodnik v.   Slovenia , no. 53723/13, §§ 70-71, 21 May 2015)?