FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF SOROKINA AND GONCHARENKO v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 41313/06 and 42206/06)     JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG  30 July 2009 FINAL 30/10/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sorokina and Goncharenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar.Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 41313/06 and 42206/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Ukrainian nationals, Ms Mariya Alekseyevna Sorokina (“the first applicant”) and Ms Goncharenko Lyubov Ivanivna (“the second applicant”), on 9 October 2006.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 11 June 2006 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The first applicant was born in 1947 and the second in 1949. Both applicants live in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine.5. By two separate judgments of 9 December 2002, the Zavodskoy District Court of Mykolaiv awarded the first applicant 6,932 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) [1] and the second applicant UAH 4,329.73[2] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the open joint-stock company Chornomormebli (“the debtor company”).6. The State-owned company Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod held 51 % of the shares in the debtor company on the date the judgments were delivered.7. The judgments became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.8. In the period between April and June 2003 the first applicant received UAH 2,425.59 and the second UAH 1,567.38 in part settlement of the judgment debts.9. By a letter of 15 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amount of the awards because the financial assets of the debtor company were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned 51 % of the debtor company’s share capital. The debtor company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.10. Since 5 May 2004 the State has held 9,64 % of the shares in Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod.11. By a letter of 11 April 2006 the State Bailiffs’ Service proposed that the applicants accept the debtor company’s seized property in satisfaction of the judgment debts, but the applicants did not agree.12. In February 2007 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the debtor company. On 12 June 2007 it was declared insolvent.13. In September 2007 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued since the debtor company had been declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW14. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004) and Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, §§ 17-22, 26 April 2005).THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS15. Pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION16. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the debtor company’s failure to comply with the judgments that had been given in their favour. The above provisions provide, in so far as relevant, 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.”Article 1 of Protocol No. 1“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...”A. Admissibility17. The Government contended that the applicants had not availed themselves of the opportunity to be registered as creditors in the insolvency and liquidation proceedings pending against the debtor company, and had failed to sue the Bailiffs’ Service in the domestic courts because of its allegedly inadequate attempts to enforce the judgments in their favour.18. The applicants disagreed.19. The Court notes that similar objections have already been rejected in a number of judgments adopted by the Court (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003; Sychev v. Ukraine, no. 4773/02, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, §§ 38-43, 20 September 2005). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected in the instant case for the same reasons.20. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits21. In their observations on the merits, the Government put forward arguments similar to those in the cases of Voytenko v. Ukraine and Solovyev v. Ukraine, contending that there had been no violation of either Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 37, 29 June 2004, and Solovyev v. Ukraine, no. 4878/04, § 17, 14 December 2006).22. The Government further maintained that since 5 May 2004 the State had not controlled the debtor company. They submitted, finally, that the domestic authorities had proposed that the applicants accept the debtor company’s property in satisfaction of the judgment debts but they had showed no interest.23. The applicants disagreed.24. The Court notes that the financial awards made to the applicants by the domestic court have remained unenforced for more than six years and five months.25. The Court further notes 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 one (see, Solovyev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 24 and Logvinov v. Ukraine, no. 1371/03, § 19, 14 June 2007).26. Having examined all the materials 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.27. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION28.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation