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 >>
SHEBANOV v. UKRAINE - 30664/05 [2009] ECHR 1560 (15 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1560.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1560
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SHEBANOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 30664/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
October 2009
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 Shebanov v.
Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc
judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 September 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 30664/05) 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 Valentin Semyonovich
Shebanov (“the applicant”), on 27 July 2005.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
On
20 May 2008 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine
the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Donetsk.
In
October 1999 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the
applicant's former employer, the State company Chervona Zirka (“the
company”).
On
8 August 2002 the Proletarsky District Court of Donetsk awarded the
applicant 4,150.39 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)
in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the company.
On
9 October 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court declared the
company bankrupt.
Since
December 2002 liquidation proceedings have been pending.
The
decision in the applicant's favour was enforced in full in November
2008.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The relevant domestic law is
summarised in the judgments of Romashov
v. Ukraine
(no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the State authorities had failed to enforce
the judgment given in his favour in due time and that there was no
effective remedy in that respect. He relied on Articles 6 § 1
and 13 of the Convention, which provide, in so far 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 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
The Government raised
objections regarding the non-enforcement by the applicant of domestic
remedies, similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in a
number of judgments (see Sokur
v. Ukraine
(dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003; Sychev
v. Ukraine,
no. 4773/02, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and
Kolosenko v.
Ukraine, no.
40200/02, §§ 12-15, 26 April 2007). The Court considers
that the present objections must be rejected for the same reasons.
The
Court notes that the application 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.
B. Merits
In
their observations the Government contended that there had been no
violation of Article 6 § 1 or Article 13 of the Convention.
The
applicant made no comments.
The
Court notes that the judgment given in the applicant's favour
remained unenforced for six years and four months.
The
Court reiterates that it has already found violations of
Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in cases
like the present application (see, for example, Voytenko v.
Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 43 and 48, 29 June
2004).
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 Articles 6 § 1
and 13 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 did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
B. Costs and expenses
In
the present case the applicant failed to submit any claim; the Court
therefore makes no award.
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
13 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
