CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8FE61A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s87B0D865 { width:189.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560FF069 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6218/07 Zoya Pavlovna KRAVCHENKO against Ukraine and 8 other applications (see annexed table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23   June   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates stated in the appendix, to the observations of the Government and to the applicants’ replies to those observations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are Ukrainian nationals, their personal details are set out in the appended table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On the dates set out in the appendix national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (debtors) to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. The applicants claimed that the judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. The relevant particular circumstances of the cases are outlined in the appended table. On various dates the applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy   Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, judgment of 15   October   2009). The respondent Government argued that the applications did not comply with the admissibility criteria of the Convention and invited the Court to declare them inadmissible. The applicants disagreed. COMPLAINTS The applicants, referring mostly to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. Additionally, several applicants raised other complaints, mainly challenging the alleged unfairness, outcome and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. Some of the applicants raised also other complaints while relying on Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court first considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. A.     Complaints related to protracted non-enforcement 1.     Application no. 50137/08 The Court notes that on 18 July 2007 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the decisions of the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya dated 26 January 2005 and the decision of the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal dated 30 March 2005 and sent the case for fresh consideration to the first instance court. Decision of the court of cassation was final and could not be appealed. The Court further notes that after the decisions mentioned above had been quashed, the obligation of the State to enforce these judgments ended. This also concerns the judgment of the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya dated 11 April 2007. The Court finally notes that the applicant lodged his complaint before the Court on 3 October 2008 and thus more than six months from the date of the final judgment of the court of cassation. Therefore the applicant’s complaints as to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments adopted by the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya on 26 January 2005 and on 11   April 2007 were raised too late. Given the above, the Court declares this application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Applications nos.   6218/07, 1056/08, 11218/08, 14228/08 The Court finds that the debtors under the judgments in question were private entities. The Court reiterates that Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility of challenging before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs’ Service in enforcement proceedings and to claim damages from that Service for delays in payment of the amount awarded (see, for instance, Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22   November 2005). In the present cases, the applicants failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applications should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article   35   §§ 3 (a) and 4 as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 3.     Application no. 60901/10 The Court notes that the judgment in question has not become final, as it was quashed by the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal on 28   November   2011. This application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   3 (a) and 4. 4.     Application no.   63464/12 The Court notes that the applicant complains of non-enforcement of the final and binding judgment awarding social benefits to him. This judgment was not enforced due to changes in domestic legislation, in particular the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers no.   745. The Court examined similar complaints in the case Velikoda v. Ukraine ( no.   43331/12, § 21, decision of 3   June   2014) and concluded that “the Government’s obligation to ensure enforcement of the judgments ended when the amended legislation was applied to the applicant’s social payments”. It finds no reason for reaching a   different conclusion in the present case. Application no. 63464/12 must therefore be declared inadmissible, as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35   §§ 3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. 5.     Applications nos.   48514/08 and 20848/09 The Court observes that in the present cases the decisions of a monetary award against the State body were enforced within a period which lasted less than one year. It recalls that appropriations for the payment of State debts may cause some delay in the enforcement of judgments from the Government’s budget (see Voytenko v. Ukraine , no.   18966/02, § 42, 29   June   2004). In cases against Ukraine, it has held that short delays of less than a year were not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kornilov and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   36575/02, 7   October). The Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion in the circumstances of the present cases. These applications must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded. B.     Other complaints raised by the applicants Several applicants raised also other complaints. In particular, referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they challenged the outcome, alleged unfairness and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. They also raised other complaints under Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and should be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015.   Milan Blaško   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President   ANNEX   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth (if known) place of residence Relevant domestic decision details     6218/07 26/01/2007 Zoya Pavlovna KRAVCHENKO 11/02/1949 Kirovograd Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd, 28/01/2004, as amended by the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal on 21/04/2004   Debtor is a private legal entity.     1056/08 13/12/2007 Yuriy Oleksandrovych SAPYANOV 15/02/1961 Svitlovodsk Svitlovodsk Court, 17/05/2005 in the light of the decision of 20/11/2006   Debtor is a private legal entity.     11218/08 08/02/2008 Vitaliy Germanovich NOVOSYOLOV 09/02/1942 Odesa Suvorovskyy District Court of Odesa, 19/10/2000   Debtor is a private legal entity.     14228/08 09/03/2008 Grygoriy Apatiyovych LYSENKO 08/12/1951 Dnipropetrovsk Dnipropetrovskyy District Court, 26/12/2001   Civil dispute between private individuals (obligation to pay debts). Debtor is a private person.     48514/08 20/09/2008 Yuriy Ivanovich ZUB 28/06/1947 Zaporizhzhya Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya, 15/08/2006   Obligation to reinstate the applicant at work. Decision enforced within a short period of delay (less than 1 year).     50137/08 03/10/2008 Samvel Patvakanovych MANASYAN 25/06/1964 Kyiv Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 11/04/2007 (in light of the judgment of the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya dated 26/01/2005 and judgment of the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal dated 30/03/2005 – all judgments quashed by the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal acting as a court of cassation on 18/07/2007).   Obligation of the State to quash the ban on selling a vehicle.     20848/09 24/03/2009 Viktor Mikhaylovich AGAPKIN 05/05/1930 Simferopol Kyyivskyy District Court of Simferopol, 17/12/2000   Obligation of the State to appoint a medical expertise establishing the nature of the applicant’s injury. Enforced on 13   September   2001.     60901/10 30/09/2010 Sergiy Anatoliyovych KULYK 15/12/1968 Kyiv Sokal Court, 28/12/2009 quashed by the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal on 28/11/2011   Obligation to pay the applicant some social payments (monetary bonus).     63464/12 11/09/2012 Viktor Tikhonovich ZALIVKIN 18/01/1957 Torez Torez Court, 21 May 2009   Obligation to recalculate applicant’s pension.