[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF KHOKHLOV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 26862/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
May 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Khokhlov v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate
Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 26862/03) against Ukraine
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Semen Yegorovich
Khokhlov (“the applicant”), on 18 July 2003. He died on
15 July 2005, in the course of the proceedings. His widow Mrs Favziya
Khokhlova wished to pursue the application before the Court. For
reasons of convenience, Mr Khokhlov will continue to be referred to
as “the applicant” in this judgment.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agents, Mrs Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
15 March 2005 and on 22 November 2006 the Court decided to
communicate to the Government the complaint under Article 6 § 1
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement
of the final judgments given in the applicant’s favour. Under
the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Novogrodivka.
- On
2 April 1999 the Novogrodivka City Court awarded the applicant UAH
1,753
in salary arrears and compensation for delay in payment of salary
against the Novogrodivska coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise).
- The
applicant was unsuccessful in the proceedings against the State
Bailiff Service for in respect of its allegedly unlawful inactivity.
- On
24 February 2004 the Novogrodivka City Department of the State
Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the Novogrodivska
coal-mine had been replaced by the Selydivvugillya State Company in
the enforcement proceedings.
- As
of 26 October 2004, the applicant had received UAH 1,530
out of the total award of UAH 1,753.
- In
August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova informed the Court that after the case had
been communicated to the respondent Government she had received the
remainder of the sum.
THE LAW
I. AS TO THE LOCUS
STANDI OF MRS KHOKHLOVA
- On
20 August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova, the applicant’s widow,
informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application of her
late husband.
- The
respondent Government did not lodge any objections with regard to
Mrs Khokhlova’s standing.
- The
Court considers that the widow of the applicant has standing to
continue the present proceedings in his stead (see Sharenok
v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 10-12,
22 February 2005).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
- The
applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to
enforce the judgment of the Novogrodivka City Court given in his
favour. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1, which provide, insofar as relevant, as
follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the
determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is
entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”
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 ....”
A. Admissibility
- The Government raised objections regarding exhaustion
of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court has already
dismissed in a number of similar cases concerning the non-enforcement
of the court judgments (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no.
29439/02, 16 December 2003 and Trykhlib v. Ukraine,
no. 58312/00, §§38-43, 20 September 2005). The Court
considers that these objections must be rejected for the same
reasons.
- The
Court concludes that the applicant’s complaints raise issues of
fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which
requires an examination on the merits. The Court finds no ground for
declaring them inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare them
admissible.
B. Merits
- In
their observations on the merits of the case, the Government
contended that there had been no violation of the applicant’s
Convention rights.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour
remained unenforced, at least in part, for almost six years.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Sokur v. Ukraine,
cited above, §§ 36-37 and Sharenok v. Ukraine,
no. 35087/02, §§ 37-38, 22 February 2005).
- Having
examined all the material in its possession, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
- There has, accordingly, been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention that
the existing situation infringed his right to life, given his low
standard of living. The applicant next complained about a violation
of Article 4 § 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that
he was forced to work without receiving remuneration.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, 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. 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- Mrs
Khokhlova claimed EUR 2,122 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,436
in default interest and EUR 6,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. As
regards Mrs Khokhlova’s claims for interest on monies unpaid,
the Court notes that these claims are not supported by any relevant
material which would enable the Court to determine the amounts
claimed. Consequently, it rejects these claims (see e.g., Glova
and Bregin v. Ukraine, nos. 4292/04 and 4347/04, § 29,
28 February 2006).
- On
the other hand, it awards Mrs Khokhlova EUR 1,800 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant did not submit any separate claim under
this head; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning
the non-enforcement of a final court judgment given in the
applicant’s favour admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay Mrs Khokhlova, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,800 (one
thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of Mrs Khokhlova’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
