issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 241 (2019)
27.06.2019
Judgments and decisions of 27 June 2019
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments1 and 47 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
15 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments below are available only in English.
Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine (application
no. 53427/09)
The applicant company, Cosmos Maritime and Foreign Trading Ltd., is a Turkish company with its
registered office in Istanbul (Turkey).
The case concerned the company’s efforts to have claims recognised in bankruptcy proceedings
against a Ukrainian State-owned shipping company, the Black Sea Shipping Company (“Blasco”).
Blasco was one of the largest shipping companies in the world until the late 1980s when it ran into
legal and financial difficulties.
In 2003 the applicant company lodged an application with the Ukrainian commercial courts seeking
recognition of a debt of over two million United States dollars owed to it by Blasco for services
provided to its vessels. Those claims were recognised in 2012.
However, that decision was quashed in 2013. The courts found that the applicant company and
other charterers had presented unsubstantiated bills to Blasco for vessel operating costs, which had
in fact been their responsibility.
In their appeals in those proceedings, the applicant company expressed concerns that the courts
were not playing an active role in protecting the creditors’ interests. They alleged in particular that
that could be explained by the fact that the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal were housed
in a building in Odessa that had been transferred from Blasco to the courts in 2005, while the
bankruptcy proceedings were pending. In that context, in 2013, the judge presiding over the
bankruptcy proceedings dismissed a request for her withdrawal from the case, ruling that she was
not affected by the transfer as she had only taken over the case much later, in 2011.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that the domestic courts which
had dealt with its case had lacked impartiality and that the proceedings concerning the recognition
of its claims had been too long. It also alleged that the failure to recognise its claims had breached its
rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an impartial tribunal)
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
