Inconsistency of National Courts Has Created Obstacle for Plaintiff to Exercise the Right to Judicial Protection, thus Consideration of Administrative Dispute Shall Be Finished According to Rules of Civil Judicial Proceedings – SC GC

Plaintiff applied to court with a claim to the authorized person of the Deposit Guarantee Fund. Local court had refused to satisfy the noted demands, and appeal court closed the proceedings in the case and underlined that the noted demands should not be considered in civil procedure since the dispute in that case was public and legal.

In the cassation appeal the plaintiff noted that he had already applied to administrative court to protect his rights, however, his claim was refused to be admitted referring to the fact that that case was under the jurisdiction of commercial courts, and the appeal court had not clarified, to the court of which jurisdiction that claim should be submitted.

While solving the issue of jurisdictional affiliation of the dispute, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court took into account the following.

The Fund performs the functions of state management in the sphere of guaranteeing individual’s deposits, and the authorized person of the Fund in this case shall perform the authorities delegated to him/her by the Fund. This dispute concerns the formation of the list of depositors, who have right to the reimbursement of deposits by the Fund guaranteed by the state, and the approval of such a register of depositors for performing the guaranteed payments; therefore, this is a public and legal dispute and belongs to the jurisdiction of administrative courts.

Similar legal position was expressed in resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, particularly, of 12 April 2018 in the case No. 820/11591/15, of 4 July 2018 in the case No. 826/1476/15, of 23 January 2019 in the case No. 761/2512/18, of 24 April 2019 in the case No. 761/2499/18 and of 7 August 2019 in the case No. 646/6644/17.

The SC Grand Chamber remarked that taking into account the opinion on the existence of the jurisdiction of administrative court regarding the consideration of this dispute, the refusal to open proceedings in the case pursuant to rules of administrative judicial proceedings under the demands of the claimant threatened the essence of the plaintiff’s right to the access to trial and effective legal remedy guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Inconsistency of national courts has created obstacle for plaintiff to exercise the right to judicial protection, thus, taking into account the abovementioned, the consideration of this dispute shall be finished according to rules of civil judicial proceedings.

Follow the link, to see the full text of the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 20 November 2019 in the case No. 761/46959/17 (proceedings No. 14-306цс19): http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/86105191.