Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/24626.03-en-20051122/view/
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 04:40:30
Document Index: 119245433

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 24626', '§ 1', '§ 23', '§ 1', '§ 37', '§ 37', '§ 1', '§ 39', '§ 2']

MELNIKOVA v. UKRAINE
MELNIKOVA v. UKRAINE About Project
CASE OF MELNIKOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 24626/03)
In the case of Melnikova v. Ukraine,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 24626/03) 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 Nataliya Mikhaylovna Melnikova (“the applicant”), on 19 July 2003.
4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Lozova, Ukraine.
5. On 14 April 1999 the Lozova Town Court ordered the Lozova Town Department of Education to pay the applicant UAH 1,407.141 in salary arrears.
6. On 7 June 1999 the Lozova Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7. In October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 24 May 2002 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The court held that the judgment could not be enforced because of a lack of funds in the State budget.
8. On 13 August 2002 and 30 January 2003, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 24 May 2002.
9. On 24 November 2004 the judgment of 14 April 1999 was enforced in full.
11. The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of the Lozova Town Court of 14 April 1999 in due time. She invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
12. The Government raised objections regarding the applicant’s 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.
13. 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.
14. In their observations, the Government contended that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (as in the cases of Romashov, cited above, § 37, and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 37, judgment of 29 June 2004).
16. The Court notes that the judgment of the Lozova Town Court of 14 April 1999 remained unenforced for more than five years and seven months.
17. 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 raising issues similar to the present application (see, for instance, Voytenko, cited above, §§ 39-43 and 53-55).
20. The applicant claimed UAH 1,0512 in respect of pecuniary damage, as compensation for the delay in payment of the judgment debt. The applicant further claimed UAH 5,0003 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
21. The Government maintained that the applicant had not substantiated the amounts claimed and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
22. The Court finds the applicant’s claims to be reasonable and therefore awards them in full, i.e. a total of about EUR 990.
(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 990 (nine hundred and ninety euros) in respect of pecuniary and 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 230 euros – “EUR”.
2. Around EUR 172.
3. Around EUR 818.
MELNIKOVA v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT