FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF KASYANCHUK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 4187/05)       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 Kasyanchuk 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, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, 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. 4187/05) 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 Lyudmyla Leonidivna Kasyanchuk (“the applicant”), on 10 December 2004.2. The applicant was represented by Mr G. M. Avramenko, a lawyer practising in Chernihiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yu. Zaytsev.3. On 15 October 2008 the President of the Fifth Section decided to communicate 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 1953 and lives in the village of Uzhachyn, Zhytomyr Region.5. The applicant worked at the State-owned Atomspetsbud company (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»).6. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the above company in the Novograd-Volynskyy Town Court (“the Town Court”) claiming 8,677.37 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears.7. By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.8. On 15 April 2003 the Town Court terminated the proceedings in the case because the company was in liquidation.9. By a letter of 15 December 2003 the liquidation commission acknowledged the applicant's claim of UAH 8,677.37[1]. The applicant was included in the register of creditors of the company.10. On 19 December 2008 the applicant was paid the full amount of the outstanding debt.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW11. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 35091/02, and the following, §§ 24-33, ECHR 2004‑XII).THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 112. The applicant complained that she could not recover debt from the State-owned company for a long period of time. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads, in so far as relevant, 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. Admissibility13. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost victim status as the debt was paid to her. They further insisted that the applicant should have appealed against the Town Court's decision of 15 April 2003 and that the application was submitted outside the six-month period.14. The applicant disagreed.15. In so far as the Government object to the victim status of the applicant, the Court notes that the fact that the debt in question was paid does not deprive the applicant of the victim status in relation to the period during which the debt remained unpaid (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 26-27, 27 July 2004).16. As to the non-exhaustion plea, the Court notes that the applicant's appeal against the decision of 15 April 2003 would obviously be of no assistance to the applicant. The debt in question was confirmed by the liquidation commission, which was responsible for its payment.17. The Court finally notes that on the date of the introduction of the application the debt had not been paid to the applicant. Thus the six-month rule does not apply to this continuing situation.18. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objections. The Court notes that the application 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. Merits19. The Government advanced their standard arguments for cases concerning lengthy non-compliance with financial obligations by State-owned companies.

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