INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

the Regional Court upheld that decision, which became final and was executed. However,
in August 1999 the same court, at the request of its Deputy President, set aside the
decision of the Aleksandriya Court and its own decision of January 1998 on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction, finding that the case should have been heard by the arbitration
courts. In <strong>No</strong>vember 1999 the applicant therefore lodged the same application with the
Regional Arbitration Court as the one she had lodged with the ordinary courts. The
Regional Arbitration Court rejected her application, holding that the case fell within the
jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. In January 2000 the applicant requested the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court to determine which court had jurisdiction to
deal with the case. The Supreme Arbitration Court replied that the arbitration courts had
since December 1997 been under instructions to reject any applications similar to the one
lodged by the applicant, since such cases fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary
courts. The applicant accordingly applied to the Aleksandriya Court for compensation
from the tax authorities. Her application was rejected; the court held that the case was a
matter for the arbitration courts.
Communicated under Article 6(1) (applicability, fair hearing, access to court) and Article
34 (victim).
ACCESS TO COURT
Annulment by court of final and enforced court decision: communicated.
CHUKHLOVA - Ukraine (N° 56879/00)
[Section IV]
(See above).
FAIR HEARING
Early hearing of cassation appeal, depriving the appellant of the possibility of
participating: communicated.
ANDREJEVA - Latvia (N° 55707/00)
[Section II]
(See Article 14, below).