Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86May 2006Zubko and Others v. Ukraine - 3955/04Judgment 26.4.2006 [Section V]Article 1 of Protocol No. 1Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1Peaceful enjoyment of possessionsDelays in enforcing judgments awarding salary arrears to judges: violation Facts: Three of the applicants are serving judges and the fourth one is a retired judge. Domestic courts awarded them sums for salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delay in their payment from the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury. The judgments were not enforced for periods ranging from 16 months to two-and-a-half years.Law:The interference with the applicants’ rights was partly justified by the complications related to the allocation of funds for judicial benefits and the enforcement of the related judgments out of the State Budget. Those complications undeniably involved a legitimate public interest but did not strike a fair balance between the State’s interests and those of the applicants, who moreover were responsible for the exercise of important public functions in the administration of justice. In particular, the litigation at issue concerned compensation for the authorities’ failure between 1995 and 2001 to comply with their legislative obligation to provide the applicants with the judicial benefits envisaged by the Constitution and the Judiciary Act. The applicants’ situation, in particular their sensitive status as independent judicial officers, therefore required that the authorities enforce the judgments and earmark the necessary funds to that end without delay. The failure of the State to provide judicial benefits to judges in a timely manner was incompatible with the need to ensure their ability to exercise their judicial functions independently and impartially, in order to be shielded from outside pressures aimed at influencing their decisions and behaviour. The failure to ensure the adequate and timely payment of remuneration to judges, and the uncertainty in which the applicants were left, upset the fair balance that has to be struck between the demands of the public interest and the need to protect the applicants’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Consequently, by failing to comply with the judgments given in favour of the applicants, the national authorities for a considerable period prevented the applicants from receiving in full the judicial benefits to which they were entitled by law, which could impede the exercise of their judicial functions with complete devotion.Conclusion: violation (unanimously). © Council of Europe/European Court of Human RightsThis summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes