[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF PETROVA AND CHORNOBRYVETS v. UKRAINE
(Applications
nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
May 2008
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 Petrova and Chornobryvets v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana
Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr
Butkevych,
Rait Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in two applications (nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04)
against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals, Mrs
Iryna Mykhaylivna Petrova and Mrs Olena Saveliyivna Chornobryvets
(Zhuravlyova) (“the applicants”), on 13 January and 17
March 2004, respectively.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
- On
30 May 2006 the Court decided to communicate the applications to the
Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the applications at
the same time as their admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- Mrs
Iryna Mykhaylivna Petrova (“the first applicant”) was
born in 1960. Mrs Olena Saveliyivna Chornobryvets (Zhuravlyova) (“the
second applicant”) was born in 1963. Both applicants are judges
of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and live in Kirovograd.
- In
November 2002 the applicants lodged claims with the Pechersky
District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry
of Justice and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears
and life-long judicial benefits (long-service bonus and welfare
benefits).
- On
16 December 2002 the court allowed the applicants’ claims and
ordered the Ministry of Finances and the State Treasury of Ukraine to
pay the applicants, respectively, UAH 6,529.03 and UAH 8,459.36.
- On
9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it
became final.
- On
11 August 2003 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Pechersky District
of Kyiv informed the applicants that they had to address the State
Treasury of Ukraine directly.
- On
26 November and 19 December 2003 the State Treasury informed the
applicants that there were no funds available in the State budget to
enforce the judgment of 16 December 2002.
- On
5 November 2004 the applicants received the sums awarded to them by
the judgment of 16 December 2002.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law and practice are summarised in the judgment of
Zubko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 3955/04, 5622/04,
8538/04 and 11418/04, §§ 33-43, 26 April 2006).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- The
Court considers that, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of
Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual
and legal background.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF
THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 16
December 2002 and about a violation of their right to the peaceful
enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.
1. The Articles invoked, in so far as relevant, provide 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 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
Government raised objections regarding exhaustion of domestic
remedies and admissibility ratione personae similar to those
already dismissed in a number of similar cases (see Shestakov v.
Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002 and Skubenko
v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41152/98, 6 April 2004).
The Court considers that these objections must be rejected for the
same reasons.
- The
Government also submitted that the applicants’ complaints under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were inadmissible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
However, the Court notes that there can in principle be no
justification for the exclusion from the guarantees of Article 6 of
ordinary labour disputes, such as those relating to salaries,
allowances or similar entitlements, on the basis of the special
nature of relationship between the particular civil servant and the
State in question. Furthermore, the applicants, as a category of
public servants, had access to a court under national law (see Vilho
Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62,
ECHR 2007 ...). Accordingly, the Court considers that in the
present cases Article 6 § 1 is applicable and the Government’s
objections must be rejected.
B. Merits
- The
Government contended that the delay in enforcement of the judgment
given in the applicants’ favour was reasonable and due to the
lack of funds in the State budget.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that the judgment of 16 December 2002 remained unenforced
for almost sixteen months after it became final on 9 July 2003.
- 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 raising issues similar to the present application (see, for
instance, Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, cited above,
Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, 20 July 2004 and
Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004).
- 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 and 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
applicants claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government rejected these claims.
- Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, and taking into account the special circumstance
of the applicants’ important judicial status, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum of EUR 3,000
each for non-pecuniary damage (see Zubko and Others v.
Ukraine, § 68 and 74, cited above).
B. Costs and expenses
- In
the present case the applicants failed to submit any claims; the
Court therefore makes no award.
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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the applications 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 applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000
(three thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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;
(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 applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer
Lorenzen
Registrar President
