BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF ANANYEV v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 32374/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November
2006
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 Ananyev v. Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M.
Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr M. Villiger, judges,
and
Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 November 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 32374/02)
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
Vasiliy Vasilyevich Ananyev (“the applicant”), on
12 August 2002.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agents, Mrs Z. Bortnovska, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y.
Zaytsev.
- On
2 June 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaints under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's
favour 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 FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1957
and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
- The applicant instituted two sets
of proceedings in the Novogrodivskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region
against the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3
„Новогродівська”) –
a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears and
compensation for damage to his health.
- On 8 and 23 February 2001 the
Novogrodovsky Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення
Новогродівського
міського суду
Донецької
області) and
awarded him, respectively, 2,615.30
Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 28,513.58.
These judgments were sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town
Bailiffs' Service (Відділ
Державної
виконавчої
служби Новогродівського
міського управління
юстиції).
- In July 2001 the applicant
instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the
Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for
failure to enforce the judgment of 23 February 2001 in his favour. On
28 August 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's
claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service.
The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly
in enforcing the judgment of 23 February 2001. However, by a number
of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the
Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of
the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been
initiated against the company. On 1
November 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region
dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court
of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
- The judgments in the applicant's
favour were enforced by instalments, the last amount being paid on 3
September 2004.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur
v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his right
to life under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, given his
low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its
case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the
Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right
to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland,
no. 32734/96, 20 April 1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown
that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see
Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November
2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
- The
applicant next complained about a violation of Article 4 § 1 of
the Convention, referring to the fact that he was forced to work
without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant
performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment has
never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and
obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced
or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur
v. Ukraine (dec.), cited above). In these circumstances, the
Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3
and 4 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained about the length of the non-enforcement of the
judgments in his favour. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These
Articles provide, insofar 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 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 ....”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised objections regarding the applicant's victim status
similar to those which the Court has already dismissed (see
Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, §§ 30-34, 20
July 2004). The Court considers that the present objections must be
rejected for the same reasons.
- The
Court concludes that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the delay in the enforcement of the judgments
of the Novogrodivskyy Town Court raises issues of fact and law under
the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of
the merits. It finds no ground for declaring this complaint
inadmissible. For the same reasons, the applicant's complaint under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 cannot be declared
inadmissible.
B. Merits
- The Government maintained that the judgments in the
applicant's favour were enforced in full. They further maintained
that the responsibility of the State in this
situation had been limited to the organisation and proper conduct of
enforcement proceedings and that the length of the enforcement
proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of
the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in
general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had
performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the
delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present
case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that
the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its
enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts
from its budget to cover part of disability allowances and other
compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The Court notes that the judgments in the applicant's
favour were not enforced for more than three years and six months and
for more than three years and five months, respectively.
- The
Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
in cases like the present application (see, Sokur v. Ukraine,
cited above, §§ 30-37; Shmalko v. Ukraine,
cited above, §§ 55-57).
- Having examined all the materials 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.
- There has, accordingly, been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 8,621 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government maintained that the applicant had not substantiated his
claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage, and awards him EUR 1,300 in this respect.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claim under this head within the set
time-limit; the Court therefore makes no award in this respect.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that the above amount shall be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement;
(c) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2006,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
