SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 6962/02
by Sergey Vasilyevich CHIZHOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
MrT.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Chizhov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 17 March 1962 and lives in Zaporizzhia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 October 1997 the applicant was apprehended by police officers B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. On the same day he was brought to the medical sobering-up facility by these officers. On 7 October 1997 the applicant was charged with assaulting and attempting to bribe them. On 21 October 1997 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia acquitted the applicant.
The applicant complained to the Regional Prosecution Service and the General Prosecution Service seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had unlawfully apprehended him and inflicted bodily harm on him.
On 12 February 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Zaporizzhia City Police Department in the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia, seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the actions of B.Y.Y. and L.G.T.
On 9 March 1998 the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzhia instituted criminal proceedings against the officers.
On 29 January 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia sentenced B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. to a 3 year suspended prison sentence following their conviction for abuse of power and inflicting bodily harm on the applicant. It also ordered the Zaporizzhia City Police Department to pay the applicant UAH 3,709.13 in compensation for moral and material damage. On 22 March 1999 the Zaporizzhia Regional Court upheld that decision.
On 1 April 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia initiated execution proceedings for the judgment of 29 January 1999. On 20 May 1999 the respondent in the case was changed from the City Police Department of Zaporizzhia to the Regional Police Department of Zaporizzhia because the latter was responsible for managing medical sobering-up facilities.
In August 1999 the State Treasury department confirmed the lack of funds of the Regional Police Department. On 16 August 1999 the applicant lodged a motion to attach the property of the Regional Police Department of Zaporizzhia.
On 14 September 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service of Zaporizzhia informed the applicant that the attachment of the property of a State institution was prohibited by law.
On 3 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service informed the applicant of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department’s lack of funds. It also stated that the latter owned no property and therefore attachment was not possible.
During 1999-2000 the applicant repeatedly lodged a number of motions with the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzia, the General Prosecution Service, the State Security Service, the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Human Rights Ombudsman, seeking to institute criminal proceedings against various officials of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department, the execution service officials, judge D.L.A of the Leninsky District Court, and a private person, D.S.S., who had allegedly assaulted the applicant.
On 5 April 2000 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s case due to the lack of funds of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department.
On 17 November 2000 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the applicant’s case. It also remitted the applicant’s claims concerning the non-execution of the judicial decision to the Ministry of Justice.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about the failure of the State authorities to execute the decision of 29 January 1999 given in his favour. He alleges an infringement of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
He also complains that the State authorities refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the judge of the Leninski District Court of Zaporizzhia and the private person, DSS. He alleges an infringement of Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the judgment of 29 January 1999 of the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia was not executed. He relies on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provide:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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 applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the refusal of the domestic authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against private persons.
However, the Court recalls that the Convention does not guarantee the right to institute criminal proceedings against third parties (see Asociacion de Victimas de Terrorismo v. Spain, no. 54102/00, decision of 29 March 2001).
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3. In so far as the applicant complains about discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, without giving further details, the Court considers the matter to be wholly unsubstantiated. It must, therefore, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints regarding the non-execution of a judgment and an alleged absence of effective domestic remedies for that complaint, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
T.L. EarlyJ.-P. Costa
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy