CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12410/18 Leonid Mykolayovych SIVAKOV against Ukraine lodged on 1 March 2018 communicated on 2 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an issue of a tribunal established by law. The applicant, a cofounder of a private company, complains that the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine in its decision of 14 November 2017 established the facts in a corporate dispute in relation to the validity of the meetings of the shareholders of that private company held on 1 February and 29 April 2016, by overturning the facts that had been established by lower courts. The applicant took part in the proceedings as a third-party intervener without a separate claim. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine, having established the facts of the case, acted outside its competence and, therefore, was not a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of that Article. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant in the present case claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention, given his procedural position in the proceedings before the domestic courts?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations by a tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, with respect to the proceedings before the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine? In particular, did the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine have competence under the domestic law to establish the facts of the case that had not been established by the courts of first and second instance (see   Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 243-252, 1 December 2020; Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v.   Ukraine , no. 1006/07, §§ 44-45, 5 October 2017; and Sokurenko and   Strygun v. Ukraine , nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, §§ 24-28, 20 July 2006)?