FIFTH SECTION    CASE OF KOOPERATIV KAKHOVSKIY-5 v. UKRAINE (Application no. 20728/04)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 19 February 2009  FINAL 14/09/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kooperativ Kakhovskiy-5 v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Karel Jungwiert, Renate Jaeger, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 20728/04) 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-based cooperative association “Kooperativ Kakhovskiy no. 5”.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. The applicant association alleged, in particular, violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of a final judgment given in its favour against a public entity.4. On 5 December 2005 the Court 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 CASE5. The applicant association was registered in 1990 and is located in the town of Kakhovka, Kherson region.6. In 1990 the applicant association entered into a contract with the Construction Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration (“the Department”; Управління капітального будівництва Херсонської обласної державної адміністрації), according to which the latter undertook to construct a block of flats for the applicant association’s members.7. In January 2002 the applicant association instituted proceedings in the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region against the Department, seeking compensation for defaulting on the construction project.8. On 5 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant association and ordered the Department to pay it 144,066.74 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation. On 27 March 2003 the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region quashed the decision of the first-instance court and adopted a new decision, ordering the Department to pay the applicant association UAH 2,227,269.40 in compensation.9. On 20 June 2003 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for failure to comply with procedural requirements.10. On 15 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region issued a writ of execution for the decision of the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region of 27 March 2003.11. On 11 August 2003 the Suvorovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings.12. By decisions of 22 September and 22 December 2003, the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for being lodged out of time.13. The decision of 27 March 2003 remains unenforced to the present date with reference to the debtor’s lack of funds and realisable assets.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW14. The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of 27 July 2004 in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19).THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 115. The applicant association complained that the fact that the judgment of 27 March 2003 given in its favour had remained unenforced for a considerable period of time had been incompatible with the guarantees set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that it had no effective remedies in respect of the complaint about the length of the enforcement of this judgment as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Additionally, it complained that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgment at issue breached its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions read, 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.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 ....”16. The Government conceded that the authorities had done everything in their power to collect the debt due to the applicant association and had therefore not infringed its rights guaranteed by the Convention.A. Admissibility17. The Court considers that the applicant association’s complaints raise issues of fact and law under the Convention and finds no ground for declaring them inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare them admissible.B. Merits1. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention18. The Court reiterates that the judgment at issue in the present case has remained unenforced for a period exceeding five and a half years. The Government have not provided a plausible explanation for such a delay.19. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for instance, Romashov v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 42-46, and Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 51-55, ECHR 2004‑XII)).20. 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 case.21. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention22. The Court notes that the Government have provided no reference to any effective domestic remedy, by way of which the applicant association could, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, have obtained a ruling upholding its right to have its claims finally settled within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.23. Regard being had to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004, and Vasylyev v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation