FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF URYANSKIY v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 21003/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 July 2007
FINAL
12/10/2007
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
In the case of Uryanskiy v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21003/02) 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 Gennadiy Ivanovych Uryanskyy (“the applicant”), on 15 May 2002.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
3. On 5 December 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
4. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Novovolynsk.
5. In July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Novovolynsk Court (Нововолинський міський суд Волинської області) against his former employer, the State OJSC “Chervonogradske GMU” (“the Company”; ДВАТ «Червоноградське гірничо-монтажне управління») for various payments.
6. On 6 October 1999 and 17 December 1999 the court awarded the applicant a total of 3,355.37 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1].
7. On 21 January 2000 the Chervonograd Bailiffs Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Червоноградського міського управління юстиції Львівської області) initiated the enforcement proceedings for collecting the above amount.
8. On 20 August 2005 the applicant received UAH 1,409.80[2].
9. The remaining judgments debt is outstanding on account of the Company's lack of funds and the holding of its assets in tax lien.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
10. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).
THE LAW
11. The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgments given in his favour in due time. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“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. ...”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
12. The Government submitted no observations on admissibility of the applicant's complaint.
13. The Court concludes that the applicant's complaint 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 it inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare it admissible.
II. MERITS
14. 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.
15. The applicant disagreed.
16. The Court notes that the judgments given in the applicant's favour have remained unenforced for nearly seven and a half years.
17. The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Romashov v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 42-46).
18. 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.
19. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. 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
21. The applicant claimed the unsettled judgments debt and 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Government submitted that the amount claimed was exorbitant and unsubstantiated.
23. The Court notes that, as the judgments given in favour of the applicant remain unenforced, the Government should pay the applicant the outstanding debt. The Court further takes the view that the applicant has suffered some non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation 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 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant did not submit any separate claim under this head; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
C. Default interest
25. 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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. 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, the unsettled judgments debt still owed to him and EUR 2,600 (two thousand 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1]. 606 euros (EUR).
[2]. EUR 233.24.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy