(Application no. 11944/05)
12 May 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lipisvitska v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. First set of proceedings
B. Second set of proceedings
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The Labour Code of Ukraine of 10 December 1971, as amended
Article 24 provides that when signing an employment contract the employee shall submit her work-record book to the employer.
Resolution the Cabinet of Ministers no. 301 of 27 April 1993, as amended
Section 2 provides that when obtaining employment, employees shall submit the work-record book that contains proper records. Only those persons who are employed for the first time may be employed without the work-record book.
Order of the Ministries of Labour, Justice and Social Security no. 58 of 29 July 1993
Under Section 2.10, if a record on dismissal or transfer to another job has been found to be null and void, a duplicate of the work-record book containing no such a record shall be issued on request of the employee.
I. COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE FIRST SET OF PROCEEDINGS
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 ...”
“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.”
1. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
2. Article 13 of the Convention
There has accordingly also been a breach of Article 13.
II. COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE SECOND SET OF PROCEEDINGS
Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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, costs and expenses
B. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,100 (three thousand one hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 36 (thirty six 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;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 May 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy Registrar President