FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6298/09
AVIAREMONTNE PIDPRYYEMSTNO URARP, ZAT
against Ukraine
lodged on 22 January 2009
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Aviaremontne Pidpryyemstno URARP, ZAT, is a Ukrainian company based in Kyiv. It was represented before the Court by Mr I.O. Savchuk, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in its favour.
The application was communicated on 11 February 2010 to the Government under the procedure covered by the pilot judgment Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment adopted in its favour by the Kyiv Commercial Court on 3 April 2007 concerning recovery of money from the State enterprise of Ministry of Defense of Ukraine “Ukrainian Aviation Transport Company”.
On 14 July 2011 the Government submitted a collective unilateral declaration concerning this case and a number of others.
On 22 July 2011 a copy of the unilateral declaration was sent to the applicant company for comment.
On 16 August 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw this part of the application as the debt from the State enterprise of Ministry of Defense of Ukraine “Ukrainian Aviation Transport Company” had been fully recovered.
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application.
2. Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant also complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 May and 20 November 2007 given against private legal entities. Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaints related to the non-enforcement of the Kyiv Commercial Court’s judgment of 3 April 2007;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy