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 >>
SAVULA v. UKRAINE - 12868/05 [2009] ECHR 2049 (10 December 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2049.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 2049
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF
SAVULA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 12868/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 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 Savula v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Mykhaylo
Buromenskiy, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 12868/05) 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 Yuriy Mykhaylovych
Savula (“the applicant”), on 29 March 2005.
The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.
On
14 January 2009 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Lviv. He is
a retired judge.
On
22 February 2000 the Frankivskyy District Court of Lviv awarded
the applicant 4,107.93 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)
in compensation for his lifelong benefit arrears, to be paid by the
Ministry of Justice. The judgment became final on 4 March 2000.
On
24 December 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ
of execution to the applicant, informing him that the judgment could
not be enforced owing to the debtor’s lack of funds. It remains
unenforced.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v.
Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004 and
Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04
and 11418/04, §§ 33-40, ECHR 2006 VI (extracts).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given
in his favour and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, 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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
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.”
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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that the applicant’s complaints are not manifestly
ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Government maintained that there was no breach of any of the
provisions of the Convention as the State authorities had taken all
necessary measures to enforce the judgment in question.
The
applicant disagreed.
The Court has frequently found violations of Articles
6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the
present case (see Romashov v. Ukraine, cited above, §
46; Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 43, 48 and
55, 29 June 2004; and Petrova and Chornobryvets v. Ukraine,
nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04, § 21, 15 May 2008).
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 and a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
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 the unpaid judgment debt and
9,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government had no objections to the enforcement of the judgment at
issue. They contested the applicant’s claims in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
The
Court notes that it is undisputed that the State still has an
outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment given in the
applicant’s favour. It further takes the view that the
applicant must have sustained non pecuniary damage as a result
of the violation found. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards
the applicant EUR 2,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant claimed EUR 16 for the costs and expenses incurred before
the Court. He provided the relevant supporting documents.
The
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum claimed.
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;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 the Convention;
3. Holds that there has
been a violation of Article 13 the Convention;
4. 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, the outstanding judgment debt due to him, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 16
(sixteen euros) in respect of costs and expenses, 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 to the applicant;
(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 10 December 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar Preident
