FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3623/10
Viktor Vladimirovich KRZHEMINSKIY against Ukraine
and 8 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applications and the applicants’ details are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
The Court finds that these complaints are a follow-up to the Burmych judgment and shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure envisaged therein (Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al, § 221, 12 October 2017), i.e. struck out and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for it to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).
C. Сomplaint about equality of arms (application no. 6265/14)
The applicant in application no. 6265/14 also complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ failure to serve an appeal on him or otherwise inform him of the appeal lodged in his case.
In respect of this complaint, lodged on 11 March 2014, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the final decision in the applicant’s case had been delivered on 22 August 2013. The applicant insisted that for the purposes of calculation of the six-month time-limit the date when he lodged his first letter with the Court – 27 December 2013 – should be taken into consideration.
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint on the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms is not an elaboration of his original complaints to the Court. Therefore, the six-month period for lodging it ran independently. The applicant did not raise this complaint in his first letter and did not provide any explanation for lodging this complaint on 11 March 2014 only.
The Court thus finds that this complaint has been lodged too late and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
The applicants in applications nos. 3623/10, 30552/13 and 46865/13 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and transmit them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the above-mentioned Ivanov pilot judgment;
Declares the remainder of applications nos. 3623/10, 30552/13, 46865/13 and 6265/14 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.
Liv TigerstedtSíofra O’Leary
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Domestic decision details
3623/10
03/12/2009
Viktor Vladimirovich Krzheminskiy
01/01/1953
Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, 20/09/2006
27574/10
13/05/2010
Oleksandra Oleksiyivna Oliynyk
28/11/1973
Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna Bulavchyk
01/09/1960
Kyiv City Administrative Court, 23/11/2009
61607/12
08/09/2012
Yaroslav Stepanovych Pinyak
02/05/1961
Khust Local Court of Zakarpattya Region, 10/08/2011
12172/13
31/01/2013
Vasyl Mykhaylovych Pryshchepchuk
17/11/1955
Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 28/01/2011
24163/13
27/03/2013
Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Lukyanchykov
21/06/1952
Kharkiv Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 21/06/2011
30552/13
24/04/2013
Oleksandr Ivanovych Radchyshyn
25/07/1956
Izyaslav Local Court of Khmelnytskyy Region, 06/06/2008
46865/13
10/07/2013
Svitlana Pavlivna Tkachenko
12/07/1961
Boguslav Local Court of Kyiv Region, 01/07/2010, in the light of Boguslav Local Court of Kyiv Region, 23/12/2011
77127/13
26/09/2013
Ivan Safronovych Ruryshyn
22/03/1945
Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07/12/2010
6265/14
27/12/2013
Anatoliy Ivanovych Kachanov
22/04/1957
Uman Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 21/09/2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy