FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 8503/05
by Galina Andreyevna KHURAVA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Galina Andreyevna Khurava, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Odessa, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of court proceedings
At the material time the applicant worked at the Odessa Agricultural Engineering Factory (“the factory”). On 22 May 1992 she was dismissed.
On 20 August 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) against the factory, seeking recovery of salary arrears and other payments due to her, and compensation for failure to observe the correct procedure for her dismissal.
On 27 June 2002 the District Court found against the applicant.
On 30 July 2002 the same court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that judgment on account of procedural shortcomings.
On 7 November 2002 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that ruling and declared the appeal admissible.
On 2 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 June 2002 and referred the case back for fresh consideration. On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling (окрема ухвала), drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.
On 6 July 2004 the District Court again found against the applicant.
On 7 December 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rendered a new one, finding in part for the applicant and awarding her a total of 31,483.71 Ukrainian hryvnyas[1]. On the same date the court adopted another separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.
The applicant appealed in cassation against the judgment of 7 December 2004. On 13 July 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld the judgment.
2. Enforcement proceedings
On 9 February 2005 the applicant requested K., a judge of the District Court, to issue a writ of enforcement in her favour following the judgment of 7 December 2004. Following K.’s refusal to do so, she complained to the Court of Appeal.
It appears that the writ of enforcement was eventually issued and on 15 March 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of 7 December 2004.
On 30 May 2005 the Court of Appeal declared Judge K.’s refusal unlawful.
On 15 July 2005 the amount awarded by the judgment of 7 December 2004 was transferred to the bank account of the State Bailiffs’ Service, which in turn asked the applicant to provide it with her bank details for a further bank transfer. The applicant, however, requested the State Bailiffs’ Service to pay her the amount by bank cheque instead of by bank transfer. On 11 August 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service refused to do so and the applicant complained about this refusal to the District Court.
On 26 October 2005 the District Court declared the refusal in question unlawful and ordered the State Bailiffs’ Service to pay the applicant the amount awarded by bank cheque.
On 27 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgment of 7 December 2004 had been fully enforced.
3. Second set of court proceedings
On 10 August 2005 the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the District Court against the factory, seeking to have the amount awarded to her in the judgment of 7 December 2004 index-linked.
On 26 September 2005 the court found that the amount in question was a lump sum and, accordingly, was not subject to index-linking under national legislation.
On 20 December 2005 and 18 October 2007 respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld that judgment. The former, inter alia, noted that “current legislation does not provide for index-linking of a debt awarded in a court judgment or for compensation [for damage] as a result of the delayed enforcement of that judgment”.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the court and enforcement proceedings. She further complained under the same provision about the courts’ assessment of evidence and interpretation of the law and challenged the outcome of each set of court proceedings. The applicant submitted that as a result of the erroneous and lengthy examination of her claims, the State had interfered with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in particular her salary, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant also complained under Article 13 about the lack of effective remedies in respect of the length of those proceedings. Lastly, she relied on Articles 1, 3 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. The length of the first set of proceedings, the interference with the applicant’s property right as a result of the lengthy examination of her claims and the lack of effective remedies in this respect
Referring to Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained about the length of the first set of proceedings, the interference with the applicant’s property right as a result of the lengthy examination of her claims and the lack of effective remedies in this respect. These Articles provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“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.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
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 the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. Other complaints
The Court, having examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they 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 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the length of the first set of proceedings, the interference with the applicant’s property right as a result of the lengthy examination of her claims and the lack of effective remedies in this respect;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] About 4,587.55 euros.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy