FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF FYODOROV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 23906/05)       JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 22 July 2008  FINAL  22/10/2008  This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Fyodorov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Renate Jaeger, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 23906/05) 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 Kronid Ivanovich Fyodorov (“the applicant”), on 18 June 2005.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 7 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. 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 FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.5. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovti Vody Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), for salary arrears and other payments.6. On 13 December 2000 and 31 July 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him a total of 4,694.11[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH). On 12 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s third claim as time-barred.7. In 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.8. The applicant received UAH 2,142, but the remainder of the awards remains unpaid.9. On 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy liquidated the debtor enterprise and the writs of enforcement were transferred to the liquidation commission.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW10. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).THE LAWI. SCOPE OF THE CASE11. The Court observes that after communication of the application to the respondent Government and in response to the Government’s observations

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