[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF LOGVINOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 1371/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14
June 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 Logvinov v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego
Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 1371/03) 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 Nikolay Kuzmich
Logvinov (“the applicant”), on 2 November 2002.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
15 March 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaints under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's
favour 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 resides in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
- On
an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the
Poltavskyy District Court against the Makarenko Scientific and
Research Company (Науково-дослідницьке
господарство
ім.
Макаренка),
which was at the material time owned by the State,
claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
On 29 May 2001 the court awarded the applicant 19,344.85
Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (Рішення
Полтавського
районного суду
Полтавської
області).
- On 19 September 2001 the Poltava District Bailiffs'
Service (Відділ
Державної
виконавчої
служби Полтавського
районного
управління
юстиції)
initiated the enforcement proceedings.
- By letters of 10 and 14 May 2002
the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible
to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the
Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26
December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to
undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share
capital had been introduced.
- On an unidentified date before July 2003 the enterprise
was privatised.
- On 14 November 2003 the judgment of 29 May 2001 was
enforced in full.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
10. The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov
v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).
THE LAW
- Relying
on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained about the
lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. These
Articles provide, 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. ...”
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 ...”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
- The
Government raised objections regarding the applicant's victim status
and exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court
has already dismissed in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (no.
67534/01, §§ 23-33, 27 July 2004). The Court
considers that the present objections must be rejected for the same
reasons.
- The
Court finds that the applicant's complaints about the delay in the
enforcement of the judgment of the Poltavskyy District Court fall to
be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention. It further notes that these complaints are not
inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared
admissible.
II. MERITS
- The Government argued that the State could not be
responsible for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in the
applicant's favour since the debtor enterprise was not owned by the
State. They further maintained that the judgment in the applicant's
favour had been enforced in full and that the length of the
enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial
situation of the debtor company. Moreover, the length of the
enforcement in the present case could not be considered as
unreasonable.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The Court further notes that the judgment in the
applicant's favour was not enforced for more than two years and five
months.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases
like the present application (see, Solovyev v. Ukraine,
no. 4878/04, §§ 20-24, 14 December 2006; Sokur v.
Ukraine, no. 29439/02, 26 April 2005).
- Having
examined all the materials 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 Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. 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 6,976.89
in respect of pecuniary damage and UAH 5,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Government contested the
applicant's claims, which they alleged were unsubstantiated and
exorbitant.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage, and, deciding on an equitable basis, awards him
EUR 600 in this respect.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed UAH 147.19
for costs and expenses incurred in the Convention proceedings.
- The
Government considered the applicant's claims unsubstantiated.
- The
Court considers that the applicant may have incurred some costs and
expenses before the Court. Regard being had to the information in its
possession and to the above considerations, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 23 for costs and expenses.
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 applicant's complaints under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1;
- 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 600 (six
hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 23 (twenty
three euros) in costs and expenses, 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
