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 >>
FYODOROV v. UKRAINE - 43121/04 [2006] ECHR 964 (9 November 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2006/964.html
Cite as:
[2006] ECHR 964
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF FYODOROV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 43121/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
November 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 Fyodorov v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego
Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 43121/04) 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 Anatoliy Dmitriyevich
Fyodorov (“the applicant”) on 2 March 2004.
The
applicant was represented by Mr Vladislav Nikolaeyevich
Bychkovskiy, who lives in Miusinsk, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs
V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On
5 December 2005 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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant, Mr Anatoliy Dmitriyevich Fyodorov, is a Ukrainian
national, who lives in the town of Krasniy Lutch, the Lugansk Region.
On
28 May 2003 the Krasniy Lutch Town Court ordered the State Enterprise
“DA” to pay the applicant UAH 1,124.27
in salary arrears (Решение
Краснолучанского
суда Луганской
области).
On
11 August 2003 the Krasniy Lutch Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ
Державної
виконавчої
служби
Краснолуцького
міського
управління
юстиції)
instituted enforcement proceedings. By letter of 25 September
2003, it informed the applicant that the judgment could not be
enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.
On
27 December 2005 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
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 ....”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
The
Government raised objections regarding the applicant's victim status
similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in the case of
Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§
28-32, 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 Krasniy Lutch 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 maintained that the length of the
enforcement proceedings was not excessive and had been caused by the
critical financial situation of the debtor company. The Government
contended that the Bailiffs' Service performed all necessary actions
and cannot be blamed for the delay.
The
applicant disagreed.
The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant's
favour remained unenforced for two years and seven 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. Ukraine,
no. 60750/00, §§ 55-57, 20 July 2004).
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.
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 UAH 300
in respect of pecuniary damage and UAH 3,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government did not object to the amounts claimed in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
Given
the submissions of the parties and deciding on an equitable basis,
the Court awards the applicant the amounts claimed.
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 50 (fifty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and
EUR 500 (five 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 November 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
