FIFTH SECTION  CASE OF SUDYIN v. UKRAINE  (Application no. 5082/05)  JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG  24 April 2008   FINAL  24/07/2008  This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sudyin v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 5082/05) 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 Yuriy Yuriyevich Sudyin (“the applicant”), on 5 August 2004.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.3. On 22 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Donetsk. At the material time he was a tax inspector.5. On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the District Court”) fined the applicant UAH 225 under an administrative procedure for a corruption offence. The applicant was consequently dismissed from his position.6. On 17 November 1997 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and terminated the proceedings.7. On 22 May 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 500 in compensation for moral damage to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine.8. This judgment was not appealed and became final on 2 June 2000.9. In June 2000 the Kyivsky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Donetsk initiated the enforcement proceedings.10. On 22 October 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Pechersky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Kyiv, which on 7 December 2004 refused to open the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ to the Department of the Bailiffs’ Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter “the Department”).11. On 24 January 2005 the Department refused to open the enforcement proceedings on the ground that it fell outside of its competence.12. Since May 2005 the enforcement proceedings are pending before the Donetsk Department of the Bailiffs’ Service.13. The judgment of 22 May 2000 remains unenforced.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW14. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Voytenko v. Ukraine (no. 18966/02, §§ 20-25, 29 June 2004).THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 115. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. These Articles provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:Article 6 § 1In 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. 1Every 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 ...”A. Admissibility16. The Court notes that this 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. Merits17. The Government abstained from submitting observations in the case.18. The Court notes that the judgment of 22 May 2000 remains unenforced.19. The Court recalls that it has already found violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the present application (see, for instance, Voytenko v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 39-43 and 53-55).20. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.21.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation