BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF LEBEDINTSEVA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 37208/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
March 2009
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 Lebedintseva
v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Rait
Maruste,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Mark
Villiger,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
Stanislav
Shevchuk, ad
hoc judge,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 February 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 37208/04) 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 Tamara Vasilyevna
Lebedintseva (“the applicant”), on 7 October 2004.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
6 December 2007 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.
- On
21 February 2001 the Snizhne Court awarded the applicant
23,536.80
Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH
against the State-owned Udarnik mine in compensation for her
husband's death as a result of a work-related accident. Subsequently,
the mine was reorganised into the Snizhneantratsyt State Company.
- The
judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement
proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.
- Between
February 2002 and December 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,135.
- On
18 January 2008 the applicant received the rest of the judgment debt.
- The
applicant attempted to collect compensation from the debtor company
for the delay in enforcement, by way of judicial proceedings; however
her efforts were to no avail.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Romashov
v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§
16-19, 27 July 2004, and Voytenko v.
Ukraine, no. 18966/02,
§§ 20-25, 29 June 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the lengthy non-execution of the judgment
of 21 February 2001. The Court will examine the applicant's
complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(see Sharov v. Russia,
no. 38918/02, § 11, 12 June 2008). As far as relevant,
this Article reads 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. ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised objections regarding the applicants' victim status
and exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court
has already dismissed in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (see
the Romashov judgment, cited above, §§ 23-33). The
Court considers that the present objections must be rejected for the
same reasons.
- The Court concludes that the
application raises serious issues of fact and law under the
Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the
merits. It finds no ground for declaring it inadmissible. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- In
their observations, the Government contended that there had been no
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (as in the cases of
Romashov cited above, § 37, and Solovyev v. Ukraine,
no. 4878/04, §18, 14 December 2006).
- The
applicant reiterated that the State was responsible for the delay in
the enforcement of the court judgment in her favour.
- The
Court observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained
without enforcement for around six years and eight months.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising similar issues to the ones in the present
case (see Romashov v. Ukraine,
cited above, § 46, and Solovyev, cited
above § 24).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 4
the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment in
her favour.
- The
Court, in the light of all material before it, finds that in so far
as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not
disclose any appearance of an unjustified interference or breach of
these provisions and rejects this part of the application in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention as being manifestly ill-founded.
III. 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
- The
applicant claimed 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the applicant's claim as being unsubstantiated.
- The
Court finds that the applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary
damage on account of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment
given in her favour. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the
applicant EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claim under this head. The Court
therefore makes no award.
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 complaint concerning the
non-enforcement of the 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;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,600 (two
thousand six 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;
(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 the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 March 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer
Lorenzen
Registrar President
