European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Valentina Grigoryevna SHAPKINA v Ukraine - 20028/04 [2007] ECHR 1074 (13 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/1074.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 1074

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 20028/04
by Valentina Grigoryevna SHAPKINA
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 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 regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Valentina Grigoryevna Shapkina, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Ukraine.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

By judgment of 7 August 1998, the Berdyansk Court convicted Ms K. and Ms L. of fraud and awarded the applicant UAH 19,357 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant by these persons.

In February 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against Ms K. and Ms L. in the Berdyansk Court alleging that she had sustained inflation losses due to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 7 August 1998 in due time. She claimed recalculation of the amount of the compensation awarded to her by the judgment of 7 August 1998. On 19 September 2000 the court terminated proceedings as the issue raised by the applicant, namely the amount of the compensation, had already been considered by the domestic courts, and the judgment of 7 February 1998 had become final. On 31 October 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court upheld this decision.

As the judgment of 7 August 1998 had not been enforced by the Berdyansk City Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Бердянського міського управління юстиції Запорізької області), the applicant instituted proceedings against the latter in the Berdyansk Court. The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment.

On 19 December 2002 the court found in part for the applicant. By its judgment, the court ordered the Berdyansk City Bailiffs’ Service to pay the applicant UAH 5,635.90^¹ in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the latter as a result of the Bailiffs’ failure to take all necessary enforcement actions during the relevant period. Being dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation awarded to her, she lodged an appeal against the above judgment with the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal. On 24 November 2003 the court of appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant did not lodge an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the decisions of the lower courts.

On 19 January 2004 the applicant transferred the enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002 to the Berdyansk City Bailiffs’ Service. On 20 March 2004 the enforcement writ was transferred for enforcement to the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Приморського районного управління юстиції Запорізької області).

The judgment of 7 August 1998 has been enforced in part; the judgment of 19 December 2002 has not been enforced.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 7 August 1998 and 19 December 2002 given in her favour.

She further complained invoking Article 17 of the Convention about insufficient amount of the compensation awarded to her by the judgment of 19 December 2002.

She finally complained invoking Article 17 of the Convention that the Berdyansk Court had rejected her claim for payment of inflation losses she allegedly had sustained due to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 7 August 1998.

THE LAW

The applicant complained invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 December 2002 given in her favour.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning non-enforcement of the judgment of the Berdyansk Court of 19 December 2002 given in the applicant’s favour;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President

1. At the material time around 1,200.26 euros