Communicated on 3 February 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 35660/13
Grygoriy Dmytrovych FILIPOV against Ukraine
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals. Their personal details are set out in the appended table.
A. The circumstances of the case
On the dates set out in the table below domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.
Following the adoption of the law “On State Guarantees Concerning Execution of Judicial Decisions” (hereafter “the Law”) the applicants used the new domestic remedy and followed the procedure prescribed by the Law. However, the decisions of the domestic courts remained unenforced.
In two instances (applications nos. 35660/13 and 47282/13) the State Treasury accepted the judgments provided by the applicants and put their requests in a queue of applications waiting to be enforced. In their letters to the applicants, the State Treasury referred to the lack of funds provided by the State budget for the enforcement of judgment.
In two other cases (application nos. 47255/13 and 60668/13) the State Treasury refused to accept the court decisions for enforcement, claiming that in those decisions the domestic courts obliged the State authorities to carry out certain actions but did not allow the direct debit (withdrawal) of the sums from the bank accounts of the debtors and therefore such decisions did not fall under the new Law.
B. Relevant domestic law
The provisions of the relevant domestic law are set out in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, §§ 24-33, ECHR 2009. (extracts)) and Kharuk and others v. Ukraine ([Committee], no. 703/05, §§ 11-12, 26 July 2012).
On 5 June 2012 the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law “On State Guarantees Concerning Execution of Judicial Decisions” (“Про гарантії держави щодо виконання судових рішень”). The Law entered in force on 1 January 2013 and was amended on 15 May 2013 and on 19 September 2013. The latest changes to the Law entered in force on 16 October 2013.
The Law provides for an obligation of the State authorities (State Treasury) to enforce the judgments of the national courts against State bodies and companies (Article 2 of the Law).
According to the Article 3 §4 of the Law the decisions of domestic courts must be enforced within three months from the date the applicant submits all the necessary documents to the State Treasury.
The Law further provides that when a decision remains unenforced for more than three months, the State is obliged to compensate the person by paying of 3% per annum of the outstanding debt per year.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants essentially complain about the failure by the national authorities to enforce domestic decisions in their favour and excessive delay in enforcement of the said decisions. They also complain about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They invoke Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Some applicants also raise other complaints under the Convention.
QUESTION
1. Did the applicants listed in the Appendix below have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
No.
Application no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Relevant domestic decision
35660/13
24/05/2013
Grygoriy Dmytrovych FILIPOV
17/11/1954
Cherkasy
Sosnivskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 02/08/2011 as amended by the Sosnivskyy District Court of Cherkasy on 12/09/2013
47255/13
05/07/2013
Oleksiy Georgiyevych KUTIKOV
20/07/1949
Vasylivka
Vasylivka Court, 28/09/2011
47282/13
16/07/2013
Tonya Mykhaylivna KULISH
04/07/1941
Zabolot
Ovruch court, 29/09/2009
60668/13
19/09/2013
Ganna Mykhaylivna LYCHAK
10/02/1941
Novosilky
Kyivo-Svyatoshynskyy District Court, 25/01/2011
APPENDIX
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy