FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF GLUSHKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22358/06)       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 Glushko 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. 22358/06) 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 Vladimir Grigoryevich Glushko (“the applicant”), on 7 April 2006. The applicant having died on 10 September 2008, his mother, Mrs Glushko Evgeniya Fedorovna, expressed the wish to pursue the application.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. The applicant and Mrs Glushko Evgeniya Fedorovna were represented by the applicant's brother, Mr Glushko Eduard Grigiryevich.3. On 5 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 FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1954 and died on 10 September 2008.5. On 3 April 1994 the applicant had a work-related accident. Subsequently, he received the status of a partially disabled person.6. The applicant's former employer, the State company “Makeyivvugillya” (“the company”) paid the applicant a lump sum accident benefit and awarded him a monthly allowance for his disability.7. In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno‑gorodskoy Court of Makeyevka against the company and the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”). He sought re-calculation of the above allowances and claimed compensation for losses sustained due to erroneous calculation.8. On 29 October 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 42,970.19[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH), to be paid by the company, and UAH 12,485.76[2] to be paid by the Fund.9. On 25 February 2004 the Tsentralno-gorodskoy District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka instituted enforcement proceedings.10. On an unspecified date the Fund paid the applicant the full amount awarded under the judgment.11. In the period from 24 December 2004 to 26 July 2005 the company partly paid its debt. The judgment remains unenforced.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW12. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the Romashov v. Ukraine judgment (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004).THE LAWI. LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANT'S MOTHER13. The applicant died on 10 September 2008. On 11 December 2008 the applicant's mother, Mrs Glushko Evgeniya Fedorovna, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.14. The Government left the issue to the Court's discretion, but pointed out that any award in the event of a finding of a violation could only be received by the applicant's lawful heirs.15. The Court notes that the present application concerns a property right which is in principle transferable to the heirs, and that there is a next of kin of the applicant who wishes to pursue the application. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant's mother has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead (see Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 10-12, 22 February 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the text.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION16. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the company's failure to comply with the judgment that had been given in his favour. The above provisions 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 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. Admissibility17. 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. Merits18. In their observations on the merits the Government advanced the arguments they have frequently put forward in cases like the present one (see, for example, the Romashov judgment, cited above, § 37).19. The applicant disagreed.20. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present case (see Romashov v. Ukraine, cited above, § 46, and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46 and 55, 29 June 2004).21. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case22. There have, accordingly, been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION23.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation