Resolution ResDH(2002)3
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 3 May 2001
in the case of Kaysin and others against Ukraine
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 March 2002
at the 783rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kaysin and others case delivered on 3 May 2001 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers the same day under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 46144/99) against Ukraine, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 October 1998 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Yuriy Petrovich Kaysin and 12 others applicants, all Ukrainian nationals, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating to the non-execution of final and enforceable judicial decisions rendered in 1997 by the Tchervonograd Court, ordering a mainly state-owned mining company to pay retroactively to the applicants, invalidity pensions for periods of several months;
Whereas in its judgment of 3 May 2001 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list;
Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of Ukraine would pay each applicant the amount of the invalidity pension claimed and compensation for damages;
Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that on 26 October 2000, i.e. before the delivery of the judgment, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums mentioned in the friendly settlement;
Having also noted, with satisfaction, that, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures adopted or being taken with a view to prevent violations of the Convention in situations similar to those at the basis of the complaints in the present case;
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Ukraine, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2002)3
Information provided by the Government of Ukraine
during the examination of the Kaysin and others case
by the Committee of Ministers
The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and brought to the attention of the State authorities so as to raise their awareness about their obligation under Article 6 of the Convention to comply with domestic judicial decisions. It has notably been disseminated to the central and regional departments of the State Enforcement Service (responsible for the execution of domestic judgments), to the President's and Prime-Minister's offices and to certain State ministries. The European Court’s judgment (in Ukrainian translation) was published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine as well as on its web site.
Although the judgment does not establish any violation, it has nonetheless given rise to a careful study of the problem of non-execution of judicial decisions in Ukraine by an expert group involving the Government Agent at the European Court, representatives of the Supreme Court, of the State Enforcement Service and of certain ministries. A first study has shown the need for adoption of administrative and legislative changes with a view to preventing situations similar to that at issue in the case of Kaysin and others. Stress has in particular been laid on the necessity of reinforcing, on the one hand, the State's civil liability and, on the other, the disciplinary and criminal responsibility of the State officials, in cases of non-compliance with domestic court decisions. These conclusions are being taken into account in the ongoing reform of the Ukrainian legal system.
In view of the foregoing, the Government concludes that the ongoing reforms will rapidly prevent violations of Article 6 of the Convention due to non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and that Ukraine has thus fully complied with Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy