FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 5033/07
by Sergey Petrovich LEPETYUKHOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Petrovich Lepetyukhov, is a Ukrainian national born in 1960. He lives in Torez. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2001 the State-owned company T., the applicant’s former employer, became a privately owned legal entity.
On 13 July 2004 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted insolvency proceedings against the T. company. On 20 December 2004 the same court included the applicant into the list of company’s creditors.
On 11 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court ordered that the T. company be liquidated and appointed its liquidator.
On 19 August 2005 the liquidator drew up a certificate stating that the applicant’s claims for compensation of salary arrears amounted to 10,574.12 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH).
As it appears from the case-file that the liquidation proceedings are still pending and the salary arrears have not been paid due to the company’s lack of funds.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his right to own property was breached as the judgment at issue remained unenforced. He referred to Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property on account of non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Government submitted that the State was not responsible for the lack of funds of a private company. They further maintained that no State authorities were involved in the company’s liquidation procedure and enforcement of the applicant’s claims against the company.
The applicant disagreed. He contended that the State authorities were liable for the T. company’s liquidation and thus for payment of salary arrears to the applicant.
The Court notes, referring to its constant case-law under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the State cannot be held responsible for financial debts of a private legal entity (see, for instance, Mihăilescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 47748/99, 26 August 2003; Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, §§ 18-19, 29 September 2005). The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3. No issue under Article 13 arises either.
It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
[1]. Approximately 1,737.33 euros (EUR).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy