FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF SHAPKINA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 20028/04)        JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 November 2008  FINAL 13/02/2009  This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shapkina v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Rait Maruste, President, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Renate Jaeger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 20028/04) 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 Kazakh national, Ms Valentina Grigoryevna Shapkina (“the applicant”), on 20 May 2004.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. On 13 November 2007 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour against the Bailiffs’ Service. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the remainder of the application at the same time as its admissibility.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant, Ms Valentina Grigoryevna Shapkina, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Ukraine.5. On 7 August 1998, the Berdyansk Court convicted Ms K. and Ms L. of fraud and awarded the applicant 19,357 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant by these persons.6. As the judgment of 7 August 1998 had not been enforced by the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Бердянського міського управління юстиції Запорізької області), the applicant instituted proceedings against the latter in the Berdyansk Court. The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment.7. On 19 December 2002 the court found in part for the applicant. By its judgment, the court ordered that the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service pay the applicant UAH 5,635.90[2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the latter as a result of the Bailiffs’ failure to take all necessary enforcement actions during the relevant period.8. Being dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation awarded to her, the applicant lodged an appeal against the above judgment. On 24 November 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On the same date the judgment of 19 December 2002 became final.9. On 19 January 2004 the applicant transferred the enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002 to the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service. On 27 February 2004 the enforcement writ was transferred for enforcement to the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service.10. On 5 April 2004 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002.11. On 1 November 2005 the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service suspended enforcement proceedings since the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service had no property that could be attached.12. The judgment of 19 December 2002 remains unenforced.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW13. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).THE LAWI. SCOPE OF THE CASE14. In her reply to the Government’s observations the applicant invoked Article 13 of the Convention referring to the same facts.15. In the Court’s view, the new complaint is not an elaboration of the applicant’s original complaint to the Court, which had been communicated to the respondent Government. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to consider it (see Novitskiy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 20324/03, 16 October 2007; Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005).II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION16. The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 December 2002. She invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads 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 ....”17. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility18. The Government raised objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in a number of similar cases concerning the non-enforcement of the court judgments (see, Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, § 28, 27 July 2004). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected for the same reasons.19. The Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint raises issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination on the merits. It finds no ground for declaring it inadmissible. The Court must therefore declare it admissible. B. Merits20.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation