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 >>
PETRUK v. UKRAINE - 25500/03 [2007] ECHR 593 (12 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/593.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 593
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF PETRUK v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 25500/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
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 Petruk v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mr K.
Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr J.
Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 19 June 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 25500/03) 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 Oleksiy Omelyanovych
Petruk (“the applicant”), on 26 July 2003.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
On
11 May 2006 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Novovolyns'k,
Volyn' region.
On
12 November 2002 the Novovolyns'k Court ordered the State-owned mine
No. 5 “Novovolyns'ka” to pay the applicant UAH 28,422
in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final
and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.
On
25 December 2002 the Novovolyns'k Office of the Bailiffs' Service
(hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated
the enforcement proceedings.
On
1 April 2003 the debtor company was reorganised and joined to the
State-owned “Volyn'vugillya” company, which became the
debtor in the enforcement proceedings.
Between
November 2003 and April 2005 the applicant was partially paid the
judgment debt owed to him.
On
13 April 2005 the remainder of the debt was transferred to the
applicant's bank account and the enforcement proceedings were
discontinued on the same date.
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 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Novovolyns'k Court
of 12 November 2002. This provision reads, 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. ...”
A. Admissibility
The
Government submitted no observations on the admissibility of the
applicant's complaints.
The Court observes that the applicant's complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 on the merits of the applicant's complaints, the
Government contended that there had been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as there was no
omission by the State authorities and the judgment of 12 November
2002 was enforced in full.
The
applicants disagreed.
The
Court notes that the judgment of the Novovolyns'k Court remained
unenforced for two years and five months.
The
Court recalls that it has already found violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance,
Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above and 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).
Having
examined all the material 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 6 § 1 of 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 25,000 (EUR 4,000) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government contested this claim.
Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 800 in
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
6 § 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 800 (eight
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 12 July 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
