FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF GVOZDETSKIY v. UKRAINE (Application no. 28070/04)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 15 October 2009 FINAL 01/03/2010 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 Gvozdetskiy 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, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, 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. 28070/04) 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, Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Gvozdetskiy (“the applicant”), on 3 July 2004.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev3. On 22 October 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 lives in the town of Starokostantiniv, Ukraine.5. The applicant is a former military serviceman. In November 1999 he was transferred to the reserve force.6. On 21 April 2000 the Starokostantiniv Court ordered military unit A-2502 to pay the applicant UAH 1,151.2[4][1] in compensation for uniform expenses.7. On 5 May 2000 the Starokostantiniv Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.8. In December 2003 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the military unit was unable to enforce the judgment of 21 April 2000 because it did not have the necessary funds.9. The judgment remains unenforced.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 ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION11. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection. He invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which provide, 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.The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ... ”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.”A. Admissibility12. The Government submitted that the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation