FIFTH SECTION  CASE OF KHOKHLOV v. UKRAINE  (Application no. 26862/03)   JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG  15 May 2008   FINAL  15/08/2008  This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khokhlov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Renate Jaeger, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 22 April 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 26862/03) 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 Semen Yegorovich Khokhlov (“the applicant”), on 18 July 2003. He died on 15 July 2005, in the course of the proceedings. His widow Mrs Favziya Khokhlova wished to pursue the application before the Court. For reasons of convenience, Mr Khokhlov will continue to be referred to as “the applicant” in this judgment.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 15 March 2005 and on 22 November 2006 the Court decided to communicate to the Government the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgments given in the applicant’s favour. 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.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Novogrodivka.5. On 2 April 1999 the Novogrodivka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,753[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in payment of salary against the Novogrodivska coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise).6. The applicant was unsuccessful in the proceedings against the State Bailiff Service for in respect of its allegedly unlawful inactivity.7. On 24 February 2004 the Novogrodivka City Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the Novogrodivska coal-mine had been replaced by the Selydivvugillya State Company in the enforcement proceedings.8. As of 26 October 2004, the applicant had received UAH 1,530[2] out of the total award of UAH 1,753.9. In August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova informed the Court that after the case had been communicated to the respondent Government she had received the remainder of the sum.THE LAWI. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF MRS KHOKHLOVA10. On 20 August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova, the applicant’s widow, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application of her late husband.11. The respondent Government did not lodge any objections with regard to Mrs Khokhlova’s standing.12. The Court considers that the widow of the applicant has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead (see Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 10-12, 22 February 2005).II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 113. The applicant complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of the Novogrodivka City Court given in his favour. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provide, insofar 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 ....”A. Admissibility14. The Government raised objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in a number of similar cases concerning the non-enforcement of the court judgments (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003 and Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, §§38-43, 20 September 2005). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected for the same reasons.15. The Court concludes that the applicant’s complaints raise issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination on the merits. The Court finds no ground for declaring them inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare them admissible.B. Merits16. In their observations on the merits of the case, the Government contended that there had been no violation of the applicant’s Convention rights.17. The applicant disagreed.18. The Court notes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour remained unenforced, at least in part, for almost six years.19. The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 36-37 and Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 37-38, 22 February 2005).20. Having examined all the material in its possession, 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.21.

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