FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16108/03
by Vladimir Petrovich CHUKANOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 July 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Petrovich Chukanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Alushta.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Proceedings nos. 1-6
(a) First set of proceedings
In 1984 the applicant had a work-related accident. On 19 November 1996 he instituted proceedings against the Alushta Office of the State Property Fund and Tavria, a municipal company, (“the company”) claiming compensation for his disability. On 27 August 1997 the Alushta Court partly allowed his claims. On 13 October 1997 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld this judgment.
On 17 April 1998 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, following an objection (протест) lodged by a prosecutor, quashed the decision of 27 August 1997 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. On 4 December 2000 the court ordered the company to pay the applicant 21,167.19 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).[1] By the same judgment the court ruled that the company should pay him monthly UAH 156.78[2]. On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 21 March 2002 the Supreme Court left the applicant’s appeal in cassation without consideration since he had missed a time-limit.
(b) Second set of proceedings
On 24 October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company and the Executive Committee of the Alushta City Council in the Alushta Court seeking recalculation of the payments due to him for his disability. On 18 November 2004 the Alushta Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 39,584[3] in losses plus UAH 676[4] in court fees. On 15 March 2005 the Alushta Court left the applicant’s appeal without consideration due to its procedural shortcomings. The applicant appealed against that ruling. On 15 June 2005 the Alushta Court declared his appeal inadmissible due to its procedural shortcomings.
(c) Third set of proceedings
On 6 April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company, the Alushta City Council and the State Property Fund, seeking reimbursement of his medical expenses. On 11 February 2005 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded him UAH 1,243.75[5], to be paid by the company. In the period from February 2005 to May 2006 the applicant appealed against this judgment and other related procedural decisions on a number of occasions. All his appeals were declared inadmissible as the applicant failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by Ukrainian law. According to the materials in the case file, the last relevant ruling was given by the Alushta Court on 29 May 2006. The applicant appealed in cassation; he did not inform the Court about the outcome of the cassation proceedings.
(d) Fourth and fifth sets of proceedings
In January 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company seeking a ruling to oblige the company to provide the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Diseases and Accidents with an accident report. On 2 June 2003 the Alushta Court allowed his claim.
In February 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company seeking a ruling to oblige the company to provide the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Diseases and Accidents with certain documents. On 16 April 2004 the Alushta Court allowed the applicant’s claim.
(e) Sixth set of proceedings
In January 2003 the company’s property was sold to private companies. In February 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Executive Committee, the above private companies and the local office of the State Property Fund requesting the court to declare the above sale contracts null and void and seeking transferral of the company’s property to him. By a judgment of 16 February 2006 and an additional judgment of 4 September 2006 the Alushta Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 27 November 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed this judgment and sent it to the court for fresh consideration. On 1 September 2008 the Alushta Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 25 February 2009 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the judgment given by the first instance-court. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court. The proceedings are still pending.
2. Other proceedings
The applicant lodged numerous civil claims for compensation and administrative complaints against the company, various State bodies and judges who had considered his cases.
In 2008 the applicant also unsuccessfully tried to institute criminal proceedings against the judges and the staff of the Alushta Court who had dealt with his cases.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments given against the company in the course of the proceedings nos. 1-5. He further complained that the proceedings in his case had been unfair and too long.
The applicant alleged that the domestic courts had unlawfully declined to consider his claims, complaints and appeals and they had been partial and lacked independence. He also complained that his attempts to have criminal proceedings instituted against the judges and the staff of the court had remained unsuccessful.
The applicant invoked Articles 6 § 1, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments given against the company in the course of the proceedings nos. 1-5. He further complained about the length of the second and sixth sets of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and insofar as the matters complained of were are within its competence, they did do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments given in the course of the proceedings nos. 1-5 and about the excessive length of the second and sixth sets of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Approximately EUR 4,430
[2] Approximately EUR 33
[3] Approximately EUR 5,866
[4] Approximately EUR 100
[5] Approximately EUR 190
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy