British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
AISTOV v. UKRAINE - 1743/04 [2006] ECHR 728 (10 August 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/728.html
Cite as:
[2006] ECHR 728
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF AISTOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 1743/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 August
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 Aistov 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,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 July 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 1743/04) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vitaliy
Nikolayevich Aistov (“the applicant”), on
26 November 2003.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agents, Mrs Z.Bortnovska, Mrs V.Lutkovska and Mr Y.Zaytsev.
On
2 June 2004 the Court decided to communicate the application to the
Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
On
1 April 2006 this case was assigned to the newly constituted Fifth
Section (Rule 25 § 5 and Rule 52 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1971
and resides in the town of Armyansk, the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea, Ukraine.
The applicant instituted
proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of Donetsk Region
against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 –
a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears.
On 25 April 2002 the
Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение
Новогродовского
городского
суда Донецкой
области) and awarded
him UAH 4,087.29.
On 5 June 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел
Государственной
исполнительной
службы Новогродовского
городского
управления
юстиции) initiated the
enforcement proceedings.
By a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the
Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from
selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy
proceedings which had been initiated against the company.
In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s
favour was enforced in full.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur
v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).
THE LAW
I. ADMISSIBILITY
The
applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the
judgment in his favour. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These
Articles provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
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. ...”
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 ....”
12.
The Government raised objections regarding the applicant’s
victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those
which the Court has already dismissed in the case of Romashov
v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 23-33,
27 July 2004). The Court considers that the present objections
must be rejected for the same reasons.
The Court concludes that the applicant’s
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of the
Novogrodovskiy Town Court is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any
other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. For the same
reasons, the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 cannot be declared inadmissible.
II. MERITS
The Government submitted that the judgment in the
applicant’s favour was enforced in full. They further
maintained that the responsibility of the State
in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct
of enforcement proceedings and that the length of the
enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial
situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the
Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the
Bailiffs’ Service performed all necessary actions and could not
be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement
proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts.
The Government argued that the State could not be considered
responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State
annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part
of disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the
workers in the mining industry. The Government finally maintained
that the length of the enforcement was one year eleven months and
fifteen days which could not be considered as unreasonable.
The
applicant disagreed.
The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant’s
favour was not enforced for more than two years and three months.
The
Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in cases like the present application (see, Sokur v. Ukraine,
cited above, §§ 30-37; Shmalko v. Ukriane,
cited above, §§ 55-57).
Having examined all the material 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.
There has, accordingly, been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage without
specifying the exact amount.
The
Government maintained that the applicant has not substantiated his
claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage, and awards him EUR 600 in this respect.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not submit any claim under this head within the set
time-limit; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(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 600 (six
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(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, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 August 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
