CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 10426/02 by Bogdan Volodymyrovych KOZIY against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   May   2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Bogdan Volodymyrovych Koziy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the village Rokytno, the Lviv Region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. I.     First episode On 25   July 1995 Mr K. inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant. The same day, the applicant complained to the police, seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Mr K. On 26   July 1995 the medical examination of the applicant’s injuries was conducted. According to the medical report, the applicant sustained minor bodily harm. The additional medical examination of 2 February 1996 confirmed the conclusions contained in the report of 26 July   1995. A.     Criminal proceedings On an unspecified date the applicant’s criminal law complaint was sent to the Yavoriv Town Court. In the course of the trial the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage against Mr   K. The applicant acquired the status of a civil party. On 10   July 1997 the court ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s injuries on the ground that that it was necessary for adjudication of the applicant’s civil claim. The court also requested the experts to estimate the amount of the expenses for the applicant’s medical treatment. There is no information whether this examination was completed. On 16   December 1997 the court found Mr K. guilty of intentional infliction of minor bodily injuries and sentenced him to one year of public works. The court relied on the conclusions of the medical examinations of 26   July 1995 and 2   February 1996. The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation on the ground that it had not been lodged in accordance with the procedural formalities. The court informed the applicant that he could institute civil proceedings against Mr K. separately from the criminal proceedings against the latter. The judgment of 16 December 1997 was not appealed against and became final. B.     Civil proceedings On 30   March 1998 the applicant lodged with the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv a civil law claim against Mr   K., seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The court ordered a forensic medical examination, which was completed on 2 March 1999. On 27   December 1999 the court ordered an additional forensic examination on the ground that the expert report of 2   March   1999 did not contain the information concerning the amount of the expenses for the medical treatment of the applicant. The case file was sent for examination to the Lviv Regional Dentist Clinic and the proceedings were suspended pending the conclusions of this examination. On 25   February 2003 the court requested the return of the case file, as the additional examination had not been completed. By a non-dated letter, the court informed the applicant that the additional examination had not been completed due to the applicant’s failure to attend it. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted to the court a copy of the note issued by the Lviv Regional Dentist Clinic on 14   February   2001, which contained an estimate of the applicant’s medical expenses in respect of his injuries. On 26   May 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered Mr   K. to pay him UAH   3,773 [1] in compensation for the medical expenses and non-pecuniary damage. The court referred to the findings of the Yavoriv Town Court of 16   December 1997, which established that Mr   K. intentionally inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant, and did not examine this aspect of the case afresh. The judgment of 26   May   2003 was not appealed against and became final. C.     Enforcement proceedings On 8   July   2003 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv issued a writ of execution for the judgment of 26   May   2003. On 9   July   2003 the applicant received the writ. On 24   October   2003 the court informed the applicant that he could lodge the writ with the Bailiffs’ Service himself or through the Galytskyy District Court. On 28   October   2003 the applicant sent the execution writ to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. By letter of 11   November 2003 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that he could contact the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine with respect to the compulsory enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applicant maintains that the Supreme Court of Ukraine did not return the writ to him. The applicant did not lodge the writ with the Bailiffs’ Service. II.     Second episode According to the applicant, on 19   February   2004 unidentified employees of the Lvivoblenergo Company insulted him, threatened him with death and attempted to unlawfully enter his apartment. In 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Sykhivskyy District Court of Lviv against the Lvivoblenergo Company, seeking compensation. The applicant also sought the initiation of criminal proceedings against the employees of that company responsible for the incidents of 19   February   2004. On 28   September 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claims, finding no fault on the part of the company or its employees. On 20   December   2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine. III.     Third episode In 2005 the Lvivoblenergo Company instituted proceedings in the Yavoriv Town Court against the applicant, seeking compensation for the allegedly unlawful consumption of electricity. On 20   December   2005 the court found for the company and ordered the applicant to pay the company UAH   602.23 [2] in compensation. On 31   January   2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal granted the applicant extension until 20   February 2006 to make corrections in his appeal. In particular, the court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the court fee (UAH   25.50 [3] hhh ). On 2   March   2006 the same court refused to consider the applicant’s appeal for failure to comply with its decision of 31   January 2006. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the outcome and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against Mr   K. He also complains under the same provisions of the Convention about the delay in the proceedings concerning his civil claim against Mr   K. 2.     The applicant further complains about the failure of the State authorities to enforce the judgment of the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv of 26   May   2003. He invokes Articles   2 and 6   §   1 of the Convention. 3.     The applicant alleges that on 19   February   2004 the employees of the Lvivoblenergo Company infringed his right to life and invokes Article   2 of the Convention. 4.     The applicant further complains under Articles   6   §   1, 8   §   1, and 17 of the Convention about the outcome and unfairness of the civil proceedings against the Lvivoblenergo Company and the civil proceedings against him. THE LAW A.     Length of the proceedings against Mr   K. 1.     The applicant complains about a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of his claim for compensation against Mr   K., invoking Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint 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 has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, they did 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 complaint under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s compensation claim against Mr   K.; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President [1] .     Around 617   euros – “EUR”. [2] .     Around EUR   100. [3] .     Around EUR   4.