CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1769/19 Volodymyr Pavlovych PETRYK against Ukraine lodged on 27 December 2018 communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the issues of lack of reasoning, tribunal established by law and legal certainty under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In May 2016 a certain B. lodged a civil claim against the applicant, seeking a declaration that on 25 June 2013 the applicant’s failure to act had caused a   flooding in his bathroom. He claimed compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 14 September 2017 the Dzerzhynskyi District Court of Kharkiv and on 8 November 2017 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the above claim as unsubstantiated, finding that B. had failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the fact of flooding. In particular, they did not accept an inspection report of three-member commission dated 25 June 2013, which based its conclusion that the flooding had been the result of the applicant’s inaction merely on statements of B. and P., without conducting proper inspection of the flooded bathroom. The courts also critically examined a   report containing a calculation of sustained damage, as it had been drafted three years after the flooding and it had not established that the damage had been caused by the flooding concerned. On 8 May 2018 the Supreme Court, upon B.’s appeal on points of law, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and partly allowed the claim. The Supreme Court found that the fact of flooding had been sufficiently established by the submitted evidence and ordered the applicant to pay B. 136,090 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in respect of pecuniary damage (around 4,390 euros) and UAH 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (around 161 euros). The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction when established the facts that had not been established by the lower courts and, therefore, was not a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of this provision. He further complains that the Supreme Court’s decision of 8 May 2018 was arbitrary, as lacking adequate reasoning, and breaching the principle of legal certainty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   (i) in particular, was the Supreme Court a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see   Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 211-213, 1 December 2020)?   (ii) did the Supreme Court provide sufficient reasons for its decision of 8   May 2018 and was its decision “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see   Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§   61 ‑ 64, ECHR 2015; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 185, 6 November 2018, with further references)?   (iii) has there been a conflicting domestic case-law stemming from the courts of cassation concerning the issue of burden of proof in cases of flooding of flats in similar circumstances? If so, has the principle of legal certainty been complied with by the Supreme Court in the present case (see, for example,   Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, § 123, 29 November 2016)?