FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF KRIVENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 19547/06)       JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 October 2009 FINAL 15/01/2010 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 Krivenko 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, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 19547/06) 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 Nikolay Nikolayevich Krivenko (“the applicant”), on 8 May 2006.2. 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 1963 and lives in the city of Ivano‑Frankivsk, Ukraine.5. The applicant, a former military serviceman brought proceedings against military unit A-3339, where he had served before retirement, claiming compensation for his uniform. On 2 October 2003 the Ivano‑Frankivsk Court found for the applicant and awarded him 2,393.62[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).6. On 13 November 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.7. On an unspecified date the above military unit was liquidated and the judgment debt was transferred to its legal successor, military unit A-1807.8. Following this event the enforcement writ was transferred to the Yaremcha Bailiffs' Service. On 11 February 2008 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment.9. On 24 June 2008 the enforcement writ was returned to the applicant. The judgment has not been enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW10. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION11. The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment given in his favour in due time. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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 13“Everyone 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. Admissibility12. The Government submitted that Articles 6 § 1 was inapplicable to the proceedings at issue, as the dispute concerned a military officer's career and therefore was not a “civil” dispute for the purposes of the impugned Convention provision. They further contested the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case, stating that the uniform at issue was the property of the State .The Government finally argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him under the law.13. The applicant disagreed.14. The Court notes that similar objections have already been rejected in a number of judgments adopted by the Court (see Mitin v. Ukraine, no. 38724/02, §§ 20-28, 14 February 2008). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected in the instant case for the same reasons.15. 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. Merits16.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation