FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Grigoriy Kuzmich Len v. UKRAINE (Application no. 852/05)      JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 10 December 2009 FINAL 10/03/2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Grigoriy Kuzmich Len v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Karel Jungwiert, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 852/05) 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 Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Mr Grigoriy Kuzmich Len (“the applicants”), on 9 December 2004.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 16 December 2008 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions given in the applicants' favour. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). The case was given priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicants were born in 1945 and 1937 respectively and live in Slovyansk, Donetsk region, Ukraine.5. At the material time the applicants worked at the Soda State Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»).6. On 31 October 1997 and 14 May 2003 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded Mrs Len 1,709.25 and 5,513.92 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.7. On 3 November 1997 and 22 February 2001 the Slovyansk Town Court, and on 22 September 2003 the Labour Disputes Commission, awarded Mr Len the amounts of UAH 2,211.18 (about USD 1,176.47), UAH 9,157.04 (about EUR 1,855.94) and UAH 2,356.92 (about EUR 399.22) in salary arrears, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.8. These decisions became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.9. On 3 January 2001 the Donetsk Arbitration Court (after June 2001 – the Donetsk Commercial Court) instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. On 4 September 2003 the court, having declared the debtor insolvent, ordered its liquidation, which is still pending.10. The decisions given in the applicants' favour have still not been enforced.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW11. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004).THE LAWI. LENGTHY NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECISIONS IN THE APPLICANTS' FAVOUR12. The applicants complained that by failing to enforce the decisions given in their favour the respondent State had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read, 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.The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”They also complained that they had no effective remedy for their complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”A. Admissibility13. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they maintained that the applicants had not availed themselves of the opportunity to be registered as creditors in the insolvency and liquidation proceedings against the debtor company, and had failed to apply to any domestic court to challenge the allegedly inadequate enforcement by the Bailiffs' Service of the decisions in their favour.14. The applicants disagreed.15. 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 the objections in the instant case must be rejected for the same reasons.16. The Court notes that the complaints 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. Merits17.

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