FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF RUKAS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 15879/06)        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 Rukas v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, 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. 15879/06) 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, Ms Tamara Vasilyevna Rukas (“the applicant”), on 3 April 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 1950 and lives in the town of Armyansk, Ukraine.5. On 6 November 2003 the Armyansk Court awarded the applicant 1,399.61 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears, to be paid by her former employer, the State company Sivashsky Anilinokrasochniy zavod (“the company”). On an unspecified date the judgment was enforced in full.6. On 20 February 2004 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 2,206.56[1] in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the delay in payment of the salary. The judgment became final. On 24 March 2004 the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.7. On 10 October 2006 the company was declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings instituted against the company are still pending.8. The judgment of 20 February 2004 has not been enforced due to the company's lack of funds.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW9. 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 TO THE CONVENTION10. The applicant complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the judgment of 20 February 2004. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides, 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....”A. Admissibility11. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they maintained that she had not availed herself of the opportunity to be registered as a creditor in the insolvency proceedings, and had failed to challenge the liquidation commission's inactivity before the relevant commercial court.12. The applicant disagreed.13. The Court notes that similar objections have already been rejected in a number of judgments adopted by the Court (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003; Sychev v. Ukraine, no. 4773/02, §§ 42‑46, 11 October 2005; and Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, §§ 38‑43, 20 September 2005). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected in the instant case for the same reasons.14. The Court notes that the complaint 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. Merits15. 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).16. The applicant disagreed.17. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising similar issues to those in the present case (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 55, 29 June 2004).18. 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.19.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation