CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2290/23 Anatoliy Oleksandrovych BAZELYUK against Ukraine lodged on 22 December 2022 communicated on 2 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns non-enforcement of a domestic court decision rendered against a private credit unit. On 10 February 2016 the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa (“the District Court”) ordered the private credit unit U. to reimburse the applicant pecuniary damages in the amount of 27,040 Ukrainian hryvnias (around 932 euros at the time). On 6 April 2016 the Bailiffs’ Service refused to enforce the court decision, referring to the fact that on 18 September 2013 the private credit unit U. had been declared bankrupt. The applicant successfully challenged the refusal of the Bailiffs’ Service before the District Court, their subsequent decision to close the enforcement proceedings and their lack of action, following the resumption of the enforcement proceedings. On 8 September 2022 the District Court ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to take necessary actions under the Enforcement Proceedings Act to enforce the decision of 10 February 2016. In the meantime, the applicant had brought a civil claim with the District Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for damage caused by the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings. On 6 October 2022 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court and dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded, as he failed to prove that the Bailiffs’ Service had caused him any harm. On 7 November 2022 the Supreme Court refused to open the cassation proceedings. The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the enforcement proceedings concerning the decision of 10 February 2016 were lengthy and ineffective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the non-execution of the decision of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa of 10 February 2016 compatible with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6   § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an unjustified interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?