CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33064/17 FINANSOVA KOMPANIYA PARTNER-KAPITAL, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 April 2017 communicated on 15 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns court proceedings initiated by the applicant company, an investor, against several companies, seeking to invalidate their bond purchase and sale agreements as fictitious. By a decision of 26   July 2016, the Higher Commercial Court (HCC), one of three cassation courts at the material time, found for the applicant company (that decision became binding and enforceable). In September 2016 one of the respondent companies applied to the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SCU) with a request for review of the above-mentioned decision on the ground of a different application of substantive law in the HCC’s previous decisions. By a resolution of 30   November 2016, the SCU, sitting in a panel composed of three judges, granted the request for review, set aside the HCC’s decision of 26   July 2016 and found against the applicant company. The applicant company complains under Article   6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention that the SCU was not a “tribunal established by law” because the domestic law, as in force at the relevant time, required that it had to examine a case in a panel composed of not less than two-thirds of judges of the total composition of its Commercial Chamber. In support of this complaint, the applicant company relied on a resolution of the SCU’s Plenary of 12   January 2012 with amendments as of 4   September 2015, establishing the composition of its Commercial Chamber – eight judges. It appears that two judges were dismissed in September 2016 though no official changes have been introduced to the above resolution. Even assuming that those changes did indeed take place, the applicant company considers that its case should have been heard by a panel composed of more than three judges. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court of Ukraine which dealt with the applicant company’s case a “tribunal established by law”, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Momčilović v. Serbia , no.   23103/07, §§   29-32, 2   April 2013, and Jenița Mocanu v. Romania , no.   11770/08, §§   37-43, 17   December 2013)?