FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF LEBEDINTSEVA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 37208/04)        JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 March 2009  FINAL 12/06/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Lebedintseva v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Karel Jungwiert, Mark Villiger, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 37208/04) 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 Tamara Vasilyevna Lebedintseva (“the applicant”), on 7 October 2004.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 6 December 2007 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 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.5. On 21 February 2001 the Snizhne Court awarded the applicant 23,536.80[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH[) against the State-owned ]Udarnik mine in compensation for her husband’s death as a result of a work-related accident. Subsequently, the mine was reorganised into the Snizhneantratsyt State Company.6. The judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.7. Between February 2002 and December 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,135.8. On 18 January 2008 the applicant received the rest of the judgment debt.9. The applicant attempted to collect compensation from the debtor company for the delay in enforcement, by way of judicial proceedings; however her efforts were to no avail.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW10. 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 ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION11. The applicant complained about the lengthy non-execution of the judgment of 21 February 2001. The Court will examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sharov v. Russia, no. 38918/02, § 11, 12 June 2008). As far as relevant, this Article reads 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. ...”A. Admissibility12. The Government raised objections regarding the applicants’ victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (see the Romashov judgment, cited above, §§ 23-33). The Court considers that the present objections must be rejected for the same reasons.13. The Court concludes that the application raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It finds no ground for declaring it inadmissible. It must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits14.

Outcome for Article 6: violation