MALYSH AND IVANIN v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible
Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger
The applicant in the first case, Mr Sergiy Valentynovych Malysh, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Chasiv Yar (“the first applicant”). The applicant in the second case, Mr Anatoliy Ivanovych Ivanin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1931 and lives in Kostyantynivka (“the second applicant”). The facts of the applicants’ cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings before the administrative courts claiming that their special pension and insurance payments had been wrongly calculated by the authorities. The courts rejected the applicants’ claims as unsubstantiated, finding that the impugned payments had been in accordance with the law and with due regard to the applicants’ specific circumstances. The final decisions were taken by the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 10 September 2013 in the first applicant’s case and by the Higher Administrative Court on 24 October 2013 in the second applicant’s case. The applicants did not take part in the hearings on 10 September and 24 October 2013 respectively. On 9 October 2013 the Higher Administrative Court refused to examine the first applicant’s cassation appeal, finding that no cassation appeal lay against the appeal court’s decision of 10 September 2013. The applicants did not indicate the dates on which they were informed of the decisions in their cases. On 26 December 2013 the first applicant made submissions to the Court from which it appeared that he intended to lodge an application under the Convention. By a letter of 21 January 2014, the Court invited the first applicant to submit, by 19 March 2014 at the latest, a duly completed application form together with copies of all relevant documents. The Court’s letter enclosed copies of the Convention, an official application form and the Court’s information note for persons wishing to apply to the Court. On 28 March 2014 the Court received the first applicant’s application form, in which he complained principally about the outcome and unfairness of the domestic proceedings in his case. By a letter of 11 April 2014, the Court informed the first applicant that he had not complied with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as he had failed to provide copies of all relevant documents relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies, in particular copies of his appeals. The first applicant was further informed that his complaints could not be examined by the Court and that the six-month period referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was interrupted only when a complete application was sent to the Court. On 18 March 2014 the second applicant sent an application form to the Court, in which he complained about the outcome and alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings in his case. On 26 March 2014 the Court received the second applicant’s application. By a letter of 3 April 2014, the Court informed the second applicant that he had not complied with the requirements of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as he had failed to provide copies of all relevant documents relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies, in particular copies of his claim and appeals. The second applicant was also informed that his complaints could not be examined by the Court and that the six-month period referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was interrupted only when a complete application was sent to the Court. On 20 and 21 May 2014 respectively the first and second applicants lodged new applications forms with the Court concerning the same subject-matter as in their initial submissions. The applicants’ new applications enclosed copies of the domestic courts’ decisions and of the applicants’ claims and appeals. In his new application, the second applicant stated that, due to his age and poor state of health, claiming that he suffered from a disability, it had taken him a long time to get to the places where he could receive the help and information necessary for the preparation of his application to the Court. He provided no further details or documents concerning his health problems or the alleged complications he faced in the preparation of his application.