FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF LEONTYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 23249/14)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG5 October 2023    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Leontyev and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 March 2014.2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention4.  The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in a court decision. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.5.  The Court reiterates that, according to its long-standing and established case-law, it should not act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, with further references).6.  Article 6 § 1 obliges domestic courts to give reasons for their judgments. This duty cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument, and the question of compliance with that duty can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303‑A, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I). Those principles were applied in a number of Ukrainian cases (see, for example, Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 42-47, 15 November 2007; Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006; and Bogatova v. Ukraine, no. 5231/04, §§ 18 and 19, 7 October 2010).7.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed in their duty to provide reasons for their decisions and did not address pertinent and important arguments raised by the applicants. The specific procedural failings are indicated in the appended table, and they prompt the Court to conclude that the applicants were stripped of their right to a reasoned court decision.8.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION9.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”10.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pronina, cited above, § 29), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decision;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXApplication raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decision)Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthSubject matter of the domestic proceedingsKey argument the court failed to addressFinal domestic decisionDateName of the courtAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]23249/14 19/03/2014 (3 applicants)Igor Mykolayovych LEONTYEV1971 Vyacheslav Mykhaylovych KUCHMENKO1965 Olena Oleksiyivna KUZMINOVA1977 A third party, D., sued a real estate developer company which had constructed a building where the applicants own flats. D. argued that even though he had invested, under a contract with the developer, in a purchase of non-residential premises on the eleventh floor of the building, the developer refused to issue him with certain documents which he needed to register his title to the premises. A first-instance court allowed the claim and declared D. the owner of the premises. The first applicant, who had not been informed of the proceedings before the court but learned about its decision, appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had resolved a matter concerning his rights. He argued that: (i) the premises in question were not in fact distinct separate premises but constituted rather common areas of the building and were, as such, common property of all flat owners in the building; and (ii) the contract between D. and the developer had been fictitious and he had not actually needed any documents from the developer which the latter would be obligated to issue. The second and third applicants joined the appeal. On 03/04/2013 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance decision reasoning that (i) D. had failed to support his appeal to the developer with the request to provide documents; (ii) the court also justified the applicants’ interference in the proceedings as the co-owners of the common non-residential premises in the building. The High Specialised Court allowed D.’s appeal in cassation, quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and upheld that of the first-instance court. The High Specialised Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal’s findings concerning argument (i) but made no comment about finding (ii).High Specialised Court did not comment on the Court of Appeal’s decisive findings and the applicants’ main arguments regarding the status of the premises as common areas of the building and the applicants’ joint ownership of them09/10/2013,High Specialised Civil and Criminal Court1,500  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.