FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF ZHUSHMAN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 13223/05)     JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 May 2009  FINAL 28/08/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Zhushman v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Karel Jungwiert, Renate Jaeger, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 13223/05) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Leonid Makarovych Zhushman (“the applicant”), on 31 March 2005.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 20 May 2008 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Oleksandriya, Ukraine.5. On 13 June 2004 the Oleksandriya Court ordered the State company Oleksndriyavugillya to pay the applicant UAH 7,849.69[1] in salary arrears and other payments.6. The judgment was enforced only in part, the remaining debt being UAH 1,252.29[2].II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW7. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004, and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 20-25, 29 June 2004.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION8. Relying on Articles 6 § 1and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. These Articles 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 13Everyone 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.”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. Admissibility9. The Government raised objections regarding non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies by the applicant similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in the case of Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 27‑31, 29 June 2004. The Court considers that the present objections must be rejected for the same reasons.10. The Court notes that the applicant’s 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. Merits11.

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