Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14692/14
Volodymyr Volodymyrovych PAVLIV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 November 2025 as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 14692/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 July 2012 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Volodymyr Volodymyrovych Pavliv (“the applicant”), who was born in 1952, lives in Piddubne and was represented by Mr A. Buryy, a lawyer practising in Lviv;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention regarding the domestic courts’ refusal to examine a claim lodged by him in February 2010 challenging amendments made in March 2009 to a collective agreement between his former employer – a State‑owned mining company – and several trade unions. The agreement in question concerned, inter alia, the supply of free coal to certain categories of current and former employees for the period 2007-09. Following the March 2009 amendments, the agreement no longer included specific technical requirements regarding the quality of the coal to be supplied. The applicant alleged that, as a result, he could no longer receive coal of adequate quality “for household use”, to which he was entitled under the 1999 Mining Act, other relevant State regulations and the collective agreement. In April 2010 the applicant amended his claim, challenging a new collective agreement for 2010 on the same grounds.
2. In the court proceedings terminated by a final decision of the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court on 17 January 2012, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that he was neither a party to the agreements nor an authorised representative of any of the parties, and that any changes to such agreements had to follow specific legal procedures involving prior consultations and negotiations between the parties.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a violation of his right of access to a court and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard.
4. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints were inadmissible for various reasons, including that they were manifestly ill‑founded and that the domestic proceedings had not concerned the applicant’s rights protected by Article 6.
5. The Court reiterates that for Article 6 § 1 to be applicable under its “civil” head, there must be a “dispute” over a “right” which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences being insufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other authorities, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015, and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 44, 25 September 2018).
6. In the present case, the applicant failed to demonstrate that either the contested amendments to the collective agreement or the new 2010 collective agreement (a copy of which he failed to provide) had affected his right to receive free coal “for household use” – a right which was provided for not only by the agreement, but also by the 1999 Mining Act (see paragraph 1 above). He did not provide any evidence that between March 2009 and December 2010 the company had failed to provide him with coal of the requisite quality or that any such failure had resulted from the contested amendments. Nor did he challenge in the domestic courts the alleged failure to provide him with free coal “for household use” during that period.
7. The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the applicant’s dispute was not «genuine», «serious» and «directly decisive» for his right recognised under domestic law, such as to bring the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention into play.
8. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
9. As the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is incompatible ratione materiae, it follows that he does not have an arguable claim and that Article 13 does not apply. The complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.
Martina Keller María Elósegui
Deputy Registrar President