CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 17 April 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 29959/17 Volodymyr Mykolayovych MELNYK against Ukraine lodged on 5 April 2017 communicated on 28 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right of access to court (Article 6 of the Convention). The applicant and K. founded a limited liability company. K. failed to contribute to the statutory fund of the company and did not attend its general meeting, a body which consisted of the company’s members (the applicant and K.) and was responsible for taking decisions concerning the company’s operation. The applicant asked the relevant authorities to cancel K.’s status as a member of the company, but this request was refused. The applicant then instituted judicial proceedings seeking the exclusion of K. The courts rejected the applicant’s claims stating that only the general meeting of the members of the company was competent to exclude one of the members. A general meeting of members had a quorum only if members holding more than 60 percent of votes were present. As the applicant and K. held 50   percent of votes each, without K.’s presence such a meeting did not have the required quorum and could not take decisions essential for the operation of the company, including a decision concerning K.’s exclusion. The applicant complains, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, that the courts refused to examine his claims on the merits. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?