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 >>
GALITSKIY v. UKRAINE - 17082/03 [2007] ECHR 565 (5 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/565.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 565
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF GALITSKIY v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 17082/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
July 2007
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 Galitskiy 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 M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 17082/03) 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 Stanislav Tofilyevich
Galitskiy (“the applicant”), on 6 May 2003.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs Valeriya Lutkovska.
On
22 March 2005 the Court decided to communicate the aplication 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of
Novodonetskoye, Donetsk region.
On
31 May 2002 the Dobropillya Court awarded the applicant against the
State-owned coal-mine “Pioner” UAH 26,051
in compensation for work-related damage to his health. On 29 August
2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal reduced the award to
UAH 24,438.
On
7 October 2002 the Dobropillya Office of the Bailiffs' Service
instituted the enforcement proceedings.
Between
June 2003 and June 2004 the applicant was paid the judgment debt owed
to him.
The
judgment of 29 August 2002 was enforced in full on 7 June 2004.
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
TO THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the
lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Dobropillya Court of
29 August 2002. The above provision reads, insofar as relevant,
as follows:
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 ....”
A. Admissibility
The
Government observed that there was no omission by the State
authorities and the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced
in full.
The Court observes that the applicant's complaint
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 raises issues of fact and law under
the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of
the merits. It finds no ground for declaring this complaint
inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare it admissible.
B. Merits
In
their observations, the Government contended that there had been no
violation of the provisions of the Convention in the applicant's
respect.
The
applicant did not submit specific comments to the Government's
observations but informed that he supported his initial complaints.
The
Court notes that the judgment given in the applicant's favour
remained unenforced for almost twenty two months.
The Court recalls that it has already found violation
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a number of
similar cases (see, for instance, Mykhaylenky and Others v.
Ukraine, nos. 35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02,
35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, § 45, ECHR
2004 and Dubenko v. Ukraine, no. 74221/01, § 51,
11 January 2005).
Having
examined all the materials in its possession, 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 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
II. 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 20,000 (EUR 3,200) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government did not comment this claim.
Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 500 in
this respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants did not submit any separate claim under
this head; the Court therefore makes no award.
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 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 500 (five
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to 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;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia
Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
