Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/20745.02-en-20060810/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 08:19:12
Document Index: 450452486

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 20745', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 17', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 30', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 30', '§ 55', '§ 1', '§ 2']

YAVORSKAYA v. UKRAINE
YAVORSKAYA v. UKRAINE About Project
CASE OF YAVORSKAYA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 20745/02)
In the case of Yavorskaya v. Ukraine,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 20745/02) 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 Polina Lavrentyevna Yavorskaya (“the applicant”), on 24 April 2002.
3. On 2 June 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour to the Government. 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.
5. The applicant was born in 1941 and resides in the village of Grodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
6. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her.
7. On 2 August 2001 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded her UAH 2,048.731. On 13 September 2001 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
8. In November 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 23 November 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in trying to enforce the judgment of 2 August 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company.
9. On 11 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of the first instance court of 23 November 2001. The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The parties did not provide any further information about this set of proceedings.
10. In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.
11. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).
12. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed her right to life under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, given her low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32734/96, 20 April 1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that she suffers such destitution as to put her life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
13. The applicant next complained about a violation of Article 4 § 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that she was forced to work without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant performed her work voluntarily and her entitlement to payment has never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), cited above). In these circumstances, the Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
14. The applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
15. The Government raised objection regarding the applicant’s victim status similar to those which the Court has already dismissed (see Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, §§ 30-34, 20 July 2004). The Court considers that the present objection must be rejected for the same reasons.
16. The Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of the Novogrodovskiy Town Court is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. For the same reasons, the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be declared inadmissible.
17. The Government submitted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full. They further maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of enforcement proceedings and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs’ Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part of disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry.
19. The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was not enforced for three years.
20. The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases like the present application (see Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 30-37; Shmalko v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 55-57).
21. Having examined all the material submitted to it, 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.
22. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
24. The applicant claimed EUR 4,315 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
25. The Government maintained that the applicant has not substantiated her claims.
26. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage, and awards her EUR 800 in this respect.
27. The applicant did not submit any claim under this head within the set time-limit; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
(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 800 (eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
1 At the material time around 325.68 euros (EUR)
YAVORSKAYA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT