FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 852/05
by Tamara Vasilyevna and Grigoriy Kuzmich LEN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Mr Grigoriy Kuzmich Len, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1945 and 1937 respectively and live in Slovyansk, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Non-enforcement of decisions in the applicants' favour
On the dates set out in the Annex the Slovyansk Town Court and the Labour Disputes Commission, respectively, awarded the applicants salary arrears and other payments due to them by their former employer, the Soda State Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»). It is not clear from the applicants' submissions whether they have appealed against these decisions.
As these decisions became final, the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
On 4 September 2003 the Donetsk Commercial Court found the debtor company insolvent and liquidation proceedings commenced. As a result, the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants' cases and the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidator. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.
The applicants complained to various State authorities about non-enforcement of the decisions in question but, as appears, to no avail.
The decisions taken in the applicants' favour have not yet been enforced.
2. The applicants' Savings Bank deposits
The applicants maintain that they have some deposits with the Savings Bank of Ukraine. However, following inflation and the 1996 monetary reform, the applicants' deposits have considerably depreciated. They have not raised their complaints before any national court.
3. Pension and standard of living of the first applicant
According to the first applicant, in 1990 she was paid a pension of 132 Soviet roubles which, in her view, corresponded to 200 US dollars. She maintains that after the monetary reform in 1996 this sum was devalued (for instance, in April 2006 she was paid 417.92[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)).
She further submits that even after deduction of relevant discounts her heating expenses are burdensome. In April 2006, for instance, she had to pay UAH 148.45[2], almost a third of her monthly pension. In October 2007, following the gas price increase, she had to pay, in her words, UAH 536[3] whereas her pension was UAH 530[4]. According to the bills she had submitted, the calculations were made for the 91.5 square metre apartment in which the applicant apparently resides.
Furthermore, according to the first applicant, she is suffering from cancer and other serious diseases. For these reasons she was recognised as falling within the first category of disability. However, the social payment paid to her by the State in compensation for the medicines is UAH 0.57[5] per month. The first applicant also asserts that the 50% discount for medicines for disabled persons need is not available and, as a consequence, she has to pay for the medicines from her own means, which has led to her being in debt for communal charges.
She further submits that she has a right to be provided by the State with special equipment for disabled persons and that since April 2003 she has been on the waiting list for this equipment but she has not yet got any.
The foregoing is exacerbated by the fact that the first applicant lives, she states, alone and as a disabled person she needs assistance.
In this regard she complained to various State authorities but to no avail. She did not resort to any national court with these complaints.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 1, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants challenge the amounts awarded to them and complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour.
They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they are unable to recover their indexed deposits with the Savings Bank of Ukraine.
The first applicant further complains that the respondent State has placed her life at risk in so far as she does not have sufficient means of subsistence as a result of the reduction of her pension, insufficient State support for disabled persons and price rises. She relies in this respect on Articles 2, 14 and 17 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
THE LAW
A. The lengthy non-enforcement of decisions in the applicants' favour
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions in their favour. They further submitted that such non-enforcement constituted unjustified interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, they contended that they had no remedy with respect to their complaints under the above-mentioned provisions. 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 preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ...”
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 applicants' 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 applicants' complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions in their favour;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
Name of the applicant
Name of the authority and the date of its decision
Awarded sum (UAH)
Tamara Vasilyevna Len
Slovyansk Town Court, 31 October 1997
1,709.25
≈ USD 909.66
Slovyansk Town Court, 14 May 2003
5,513.92
≈ EUR 923.70
Grigoriy Kuzmich Len
Slovyansk Town Court, 3 November 1997
2,211.18
≈ USD 1,176.47
Slovyansk Town Court, 22 February 2001
9,157.04
≈ EUR 1,855.94
Labour Disputes Commission, 22 September 2003
2,356.92
≈ EUR 399.22
[1] At the material time about 71.31 euros (EUR)
[2] About EUR 25.39
[3] About EUR 76.57
[4] About EUR 75.71
[5] About EUR 0.08
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy