[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF URYANSKIY v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 21003/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
July 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention.
In the case of Uryanskiy v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
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. 21003/02) 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 Gennadiy Ivanovych
Uryanskyy (“the applicant”), on 15 May 2002.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
5 December 2005 the Court decided to give notice of 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 1947 and lives in Novovolynsk.
- In
July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the
Novovolynsk Court (Нововолинський
міський суд
Волинської
області) against
his former employer, the State OJSC “Chervonogradske GMU”
(“the Company”; ДВАТ
«Червоноградське
гірничо-монтажне
управління»)
for various payments.
- On
6 October 1999 and 17 December 1999 the court
awarded the applicant a total of 3,355.37 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH).
- On 21 January 2000
the Chervonograd Bailiffs Service (Відділ
Державної
виконавчої
служби Червоноградського
міського управління
юстиції Львівської
області)
initiated the enforcement proceedings for collecting the above
amount.
- On
20 August 2005 the applicant received UAH 1,409.80.
- The
remaining judgments debt is outstanding on account of the Company's
lack of funds and the holding of its assets in tax lien.
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
- The
applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce
the judgments given in his favour in due time. He invoked
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides,
insofar as relevant, as follows:
“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. ...”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
- The
Government submitted no observations on admissibility of the
applicant's complaint.
- The Court concludes that the applicant's complaint
raises issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination
of which requires an examination on the merits. It finds no ground
for declaring it inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare it
admissible.
II. 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.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that the judgments given in the applicant's favour have
remained unenforced for nearly seven and a half years.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance,
Romashov v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 42-46).
- 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.
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 the unsettled judgments debt and 5,000 euros (EUR)
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the amount claimed was exorbitant and
unsubstantiated.
- The
Court notes that, as the judgments given in favour of the applicant
remain unenforced, the Government should pay the applicant the
outstanding debt. The Court further takes the view that the applicant
has suffered some 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 the
sum of EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not submit any separate claim under
this head; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
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, the unsettled
judgments debt still owed to him and EUR 2,600 (two thousand six
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
