BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF ARYAMIN v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 3155/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
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 Aryamin 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 29 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 3155/03) 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 Anatoliy Vasylyovych
Aryamin (“the applicant”), on 20 December 2002.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
- On
14 March 2006 the Court decided to communicate the complaint
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 1943 and lives in the town of Chervonograd,
L'viv Region.
- On 26 November 1998 the Chervonograd Court ordered the
State owned mining company “2 Velykomostivska” to
pay the applicant UAH 16,960
in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final
and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.
- In
December 1998 the Chervonograd Department of Bailiffs' Service
instituted enforcement proceedings in the case.
- During
2000 the applicant was paid UAH 400.
- On
1 November 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 600.
- On
21 February 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 14,950
- The
judgment of 26 November 1998 was enforced in full on 27 February
2003.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur
v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Chervonograd Court
of 26 November 1998. The above provision reads, 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. ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted no observations on the admissibility of the
applicant's complaints.
- The Court observes that the applicant's complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 this complaint inadmissible. The Court must therefore
declare it admissible.
B. 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 as there was no
omission by the State authorities and the judgment of 26 November
1998 was enforced in full.
- The
applicants disagreed.
- The
Court notes that the judgment of the Chervonograd Court remained
largely unenforced for four years and three months.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance,
Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above and Mykhaylenky and
Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02,
35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and
42814/02, § 45, ECHR 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that
the existing situation caused deterioration of his health.
- However, in the light of all the materials in its
possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention
or its Protocols (see Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above).
- It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 1, 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.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed UAH 10,000 (EUR 1,616) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,600 in
this respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicants did not submit any separate claim under
this head; 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
- Declares the complaint concerning the
non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour admissible
and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- 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, EUR 1,600 (one
thousand and 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
