[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF SHEVTSOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 16985/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
December 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 Shevtsov 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 13 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 16985/03) 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 Vladimir Andreyevich
Shevtsov (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2003.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska.
- On
15 March 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 1955 and lives in Lugansk.
A. First set of proceedings
- On
8 August 2001 the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk ordered the
State Enterprise “Luganskyy Stankobudivelnyy Zavod” to
pay the applicant UAH 2,575.34
in salary arrears and compensation for the delay in its payment.
- On
13 September 2001 the Leninskyy District Bailiffs' Service
of Lugansk instituted enforcement proceedings.
- On
13 November 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that
the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the
substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and
the debtor's lack of funds.
- On
19 April 2005 the applicant was paid the amount due to him in
full.
B. Second set of proceedings
- In
April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy
District Court of Lugansk against the same company, seeking
compensation for its failure to pay him the judgment debt of 8 August
2001.
- On
8 July 2002 the court rejected the applicant's claim as
unsubstantiated. On 5 September 2002 and 28 January 2003,
respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court upheld the decision of 8 July 2002.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v.
Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18 and 39-41, 27 July
2004).
THE LAW
I. COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF
THE JUDGMENT OF 8 August 2001
- The
applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce
the judgment of the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk of
8 August 2001 in due time. He invoked Articles 6 § 1
and 13 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 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 ....”
A. 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 (see
Romashov, cited above, §§ 23-33). The Court
considers that the present objections must be rejected for the same
reasons.
- The
Court concludes that this part of the application raises issues of
fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which
requires an examination of the merits. It finds no ground for
declaring it inadmissible.
B. Merits
- In
their observations, the Government put forward arguments similar to
those in the cases of Romashov v. Ukraine and Voytenko
v. Ukraine, contending that there had been no violation of
either Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Romashov,
cited above, § 37, and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02,
29 June 2004, § 37).
- The
Court notes that judgment of the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk
of 8 August 2001 remained unenforced for around three years
and seven 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 raising
issues similar to the present application (see, for instance,
Romashov, cited above, §§ 42-46, and Voytenko,
cited above, §§ 53-55).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing 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.
- The
Court does not find it necessary in the circumstances to examine the
same complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Derkach
and Palek v. Ukraine, nos. 34297/02 and 39574/02, § 42, 21
December 2004).
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the outcome and length of the second set of
proceedings.
- The
Court finds that there is nothing to show that the proceedings were
arbitrary or that the court decisions reached were manifestly
unreasonable. The applicant enjoyed the right to adversarial
proceedings with the participation of interested parties and was able
to introduce all necessary arguments in defence of his interests, and
the judicial authorities gave them due consideration. The Court
further notes that the proceedings before the courts of three levels
of jurisdiction were completed within one year and therefore their
length cannot be considered unreasonable. Accordingly, this part of
the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant
to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- The
applicant also alleged that he had suffered discrimination in the
enjoyment of his property rights, contrary to Article 14 of the
Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
- The
Court considers that the facts of the present case do not disclose
any appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in
conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected as manifestly
ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in the
time-limit fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that
there is no call to award him any sum on this account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the applicant's complaints under
Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the length of the
non enforcement of the judgment of the Leninskyy District Court
of Lugansk of 8 August 2001 admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- 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 that it is not necessary to examine the
applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
