FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF TERESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 33959/05)     JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 30 July 2009 FINAL 30/10/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tereshchenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, 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 an application (no. 33959/05) 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, Ms Valentyna Pavlivna Tereshchenko (“the applicant”), on 3 September 2005.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 11 June 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 FACTS4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine.5. The applicant and her husband worked for a State company, open joint stock company Electrongaz, (“the company”). By two separate judgments of 12 May 1999, the Zheltovodsky Court awarded the applicant and her husband 3,465.53 and 659.45[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) respectively. On 10 October 2003 the applicant’s husband died. The applicant inherited the award against the company made by the court in his favour.6. In a letter of 3 January 2008 the applicant reported that both judgments had been enforced in full in May 2007.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW7. The relevant domestic law regarding enforcement of court decisions is summarised in the judgment of Voytenko v. Ukraine (no. 18966/02, §§ 20-25, 29 June 2004).THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO.1 TO THE CONVENTION8. The applicant complained that the judgments given in her favour and in favour of her husband were not enforced in good time. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the Convention, which reads as follows: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 submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they maintained that she had not availed herself of the opportunity to be registered as creditor in the insolvency proceedings pending against the debtor enterprise.10. The applicant disagreed.11. The Court notes that similar objections have already been rejected in a number of judgments adopted by the Court (see Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, §§ 38-43, 20 September 2005, and Otychenko and Fedishchenko v. Ukraine, nos. 1755/05 and 25912/06, § 27, 12 March 2009). The Court considers that this objection must be rejected in the instant case for the same reasons.12. The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits13.

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