CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 June 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62359/17 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych NESENENKO against Ukraine lodged on 15 August 2017 communicated on 8 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to education ensured in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. In September 2005 the applicant was admitted to the Kremenchuk Aviation College of the State Aviation University (the “SAU”), a State-run institution, to become a helicopter pilot. During his years of study, the applicant did not undergo the compulsory flight training on MI-2 and MI-8 helicopters because of the institution’s lack of funds. Nevertheless, in 2009, in the absence of the flying practice, the applicant was delivered a diploma stating that he was the holder of Bachelor’s degree in aircrafts operation ( експлуатації літальних апаратів ). In Appendix to the diploma, the lines “qualification” ( спеціалізація ) and “flying practice” were left blank. According to the applicant, the absence of the flying practice prevented him from being qualified as a pilot. On 25 March 2015, relying on the applicant’s constitutional right to education, the Avtozavodskyy District Court of Kremenchuk allowed the applicant’s claim against the SAU and ordered the latter to provide the applicant with the compulsory training on MI-2 helicopter in accordance with his study programme and ensure his 15 hours’ training on MI-8 MTB simulator. This judgment was upheld by higher courts and came into force on 4 May 2016. According to the applicant, by 21 June 2018 the SAU had provided him with the training on MI-2 helicopter but the remainder of the judgment of 25   March 2015 remains unenforced, apparently, because of the lack of funds. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complains that by failing for years to comply with its obligation to provide him with compulsory flight training, the SAU had breached his right to education. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the teaching establishment’s failure to provide the applicant with the compulsory flight training prescribed by his study programme amount to a denial of the applicant’s right to education, as guaranteed by Article   2 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did the applicant qualify as a pilot on the basis of the diploma he obtained in 2009?   2.     Can the applicant be considered as a victim of the alleged violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 having regard to the training he received no later than in 2018?