[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF LEN v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 43065/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
November 2006
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 Len v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mr K.
Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr J.
Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 43065/04) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Pyotr Anatolyevich
Len (“the applicant”), on 21 February 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Bychkovskiy from
Miusinsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On 8 November 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 was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk
region.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- In
2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch
Court (Краснолуцький
міський суд
Луганської
області) against
his employer, the State Open Joint Stock Mining Company “Izvestiya”
(“the Company,” ДВАТ
шахта „Ізвестія”),
for salary arrears and other
payments. On 14 June 2000 the court awarded the applicant
UAH 8,185.11.
This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
- On
26 June 2000 the
Krasnyy Luch
Bailiffs' Service
(“the Bailiffs,” Відділ
Державної
виконавчої
служби Краснолуцького
міського управління
юстиції) initiated
the enforcement
proceedings for the above judgment.
- On
29 October 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the
Commercial Court,” Господарський
суд Луганської
області)
initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and
introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.
- On
28 July 2003 the Commercial Court approved a friendly
settlement between the Company and its creditors.
- On
3 December 2004 the applicant received his judgment debt
and the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as completed.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- A
description of the relevant domestic law can be found in
Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22,
26 April 2005).
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce
the judgment of the Krasnyy Luch Court of 14 June 2000 in
due time. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which
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 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 submitted no observations on the admissibility of the
applicant's complaints.
- The Court concludes that the applicant's complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the
delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 14 June 2000
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 this complaint inadmissible. The Court must therefore
declare it admissible. For the same reasons, the Court declares
admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1.
II. MERITS
- In
their observations on the merits, the Government contended that there
had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that the judgment of the Krasnyy Luch Court of
14 June 2000 remained unenforced for about four years and
six 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 a number of
similar cases (see, for instance, Sokur v. Ukraine, cited
above, §§ 36-37 and Sharenok v. Ukraine, no.
35087/02, §§ 37-38, 22 February 2005).
- 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 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
22. The applicant claimed
UAH 38,702.70
by way of just satisfaction.
23. The Government submitted that this
claim should be rejected.
24. The Court takes the view that the
applicant has suffered some non-pecuniary damage as a result of the
violations 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 1,400 (one thousand four hundred euros)
by way of just satisfaction.
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 that there has been a violation of
Article 1 Protocol No. 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
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
the global sum of EUR 1,400 (one thousand four hundred euros) in
respect of just satisfaction, to be converted into the currency of
the respondent State at the rate applicable on 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 30 November 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President
