Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/4504.04-en-20060601/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-07 10:15:45
Document Index: 760380014

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 4504', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 37', '§ 1', '§ 42', '§ 2']

SINKO v. UKRAINE About Project
CASE OF SINKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 4504/04)
In the case of Sinko v. Ukraine,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 4504/04) 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, Mr Anatoliy Vasilyevich Sinko (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2003.
5. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Rodinske, the Donetsk region.
6. In 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise Rodinska Mine (the “MR”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 13 January 1999, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,204.071 in salary arrears and other payments.
7. On 4 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the MR and appointed the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” as the MR’s successor.
8. On 9 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
9. In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” for compensation. By decision of 26 November 2003, the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,312.382 in compensation.
10. On 25 April 2005 the judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.
12. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments of the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court of 13 January 1999 and 26 November 2003 in due time. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“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 ...”
14. The Court considers 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.
15. In their observations, the Government contended that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (see Romashov, cited above, § 37).
17. The Court notes that the judgments of the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court of 13 January 1999 and 26 November 2003 remained unenforced for around six years and three months, and one year and five months, respectively.
18. The Court recalls that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues to the present application (see, for example, Romashov, cited above, §§ 42-46).
21. The applicant claimed UAH 5,0003 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Government contended that the applicant had not substantiated the amounts claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
23. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the requested amount of EUR 810 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 810 (eight hundred and ten euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;
1. Around 518 euros – “EUR”.
2. Around EUR 212.
3. Around EUR 810.
SINKO v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT