(Application no. 17133/04)
21 December 2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ldokova v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Enforcement proceedings
6. By letter of 17 February 2005, the Prosecutor's Office of the ARC, following the applicant's complaint, informed her that the Ministry of Education of the ARC had been closed down and that the writ of enforcement had been forwarded to the liquidation commission.
7. By the letter of 3 May 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 1 December 2003 had been enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 27 April 2006.
B. Other events
8. The applicant alleged that she has been persecuted by the police. In particular, the applicant stated that she had been beaten by police officers on 7 December 2003. From the applicant's submissions, it seems that this allegation is related to the situation of her son, who was detained on suspicion of committing a crime. The applicant did not raise this complaint before any relevant State authority.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
9. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 10, 14 AND 17 OF THE CONVENTION
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
1) Failure to award compensation
2) Lengthy non-enforcement
17. The Government maintained that the right of the applicant to have a judgment in her favour enforced has been never questioned. The Government further submitted that the limitations of this right in the present case were aimed at the protection of the public interests and that these limitations did not breach the very essence of the right in question. In particular, in 2004-2005 the State had adopted a number of legal acts to improve the situations with salary and other payments in the sphere of education. The Government finally considered that the length of the enforcement in the present case could not be considered as unreasonable.
18. The applicant disagreed.
19. The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant's favour was not enforced for more than one year and seven months.
21. Having examined all the materials submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
22. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
23. The Court does not consider it necessary in the circumstances to rule on the same complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
24. 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.”
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds that it is not necessary to rule on the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 220 (two hundred twenty euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that the above amount shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(c) 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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 December 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
1. At the material time 190.77 euros (“EUR”).
2. Around EUR 103.96.
3. Around EUR 20.