Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/19037.03-en-20060810/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-06 12:00:14
Document Index: 493642428

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 19037', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 20', '§ 1', '§ 30', '§ 1', '§ 2']

KIRILO v. UKRAINE
KIRILO v. UKRAINE About Project
CASE OF KIRILO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 19037/03)
In the case of Kirilo v. Ukraine,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 19037/03) 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, Mr Igor Viktorovich Kirilo (“the applicant”), on 11 April 2003.
3. On 21 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 1976 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, 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 compensation for damage to his health.
7. On 28 March 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решения Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 4,133.811. This judgment was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции).
8. 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 of 28 March 2002 in his favour. On 10 October 2002 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 enforcing the judgment of 28 March 2002. 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. On 9 December 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 3 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
9. In June 2004 the applicant withdrew his writ of execution.
12. The Court notes that, after the communication of the case to the respondent Government, the applicant introduced new complaint, alleging violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
13. In the Court’s view, the new complaint is not an elaboration of the applicant’s original complaints, lodged with the Court approximately two years earlier, on which the parties have commented. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take these matters up separately (see Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005).
15. The applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
16. 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.
18. The Government maintained 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 Government pointed out that as on 29 June 2004 the applicant withdrew his writ of enforcement, the Government were not responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment after this date. 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.
20. The Court notes that, notwithstanding the fact that on 29 June 2004 the applicant withdrew the writ of enforcement, by failing for two years and three months to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 28 March 2002, the authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect. It further considers that the Government have not advanced any convincing justification for this delay.
25. The applicant claimed EUR 11,249 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
27. 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 him EUR 400 in this respect.
28. 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 400 (four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
1. At the material time approximately 925.30 euros (EUR).
KIRILO v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT