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 YARMOLA v. UKRAINE
(Application
no. 7060/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 April
2009
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 Yarmola v.
Ukraine,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad
hoc judge,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 7060/04) 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 Ukrainian national, Mr Stanislav Kazimirovich
Yarmola (“the applicant”), on 10 November 2003.
- The
Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
- On
26 November 2007 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 FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Yevpatoriya,
Ukraine.
- On
8 December 1999 the Chornomorsk District Court of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea (“the District Court”) fined the
applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial activity without a
licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5 tonnes of the waste
metal collected by him.
- On
22 December 1999 the same court, following the protest of the
Chrornomorsk District Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea, quashed this decision and terminated the administrative
proceedings against the applicant. The case file was transferred to
the Chornomorsk District Prosecutor's Service of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea for a decision on account of the applicant's
criminal liability for tax evasion.
- On
22 January 2000 the Head of the Chornomorsk Tax Inspectorate refused
to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant.
- On
27 January 2000 the District Court examined the same case file again
and fined the applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial
activity without a licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5
tonnes of the waste metal collected by him. The applicant lodged an
appeal with the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
- On
27 April 2000 the Chornomorsk Bailiffs' Service, noting that
proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea, ordered the suspension of the enforcement
proceedings in respect of the decision of 27 January 2000. However,
the Yevpatoriya Tax Inspectorate sold the waste metal.
- On
10 May 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
quashed the decision of 27 January 2000 and terminated the
proceedings on the ground that the same facts had already been
examined by the court.
- On
19 April 2002 the District Court ordered the restitution of the 268.5
tonnes of the waste metal to the applicant.
- On
20 August 2002 the same court, following the applicant's request,
modified the ruling of 19 April 2002 and ordered the State Treasury
to pay the applicant UAH 89,410
in compensation for the waste metal sold by the Tax Inspectorate.
- The
applicant challenged the Bailiff's inactivity in enforcing the ruling
of 19 April 2002 on numerous occasions before the domestic
authorities.
-
In September 2002 the applicant lodged his claim for compensation for
damage caused by the administrative proceedings against him and the
confiscation of his property with the District Court. On 10 December
2003 the District Court ordered the State Treasury to pay the
applicant UAH 3,000. On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal of the
Crimea modified this decision and ordered the same amount to be paid
to the applicant from the State Budget.
- The
ruling of 19 April 2002, as amended by the ruling of 20 August 2002,
and the judgment of 10 December 2003 were enforced in August 2004.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Romashov
v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§
16-19, 27 July 2004, and Voytenko v.
Ukraine, no. 18966/02,
§§ 20-25, 29 June 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the lengthy non-execution of the ruling of
19 April 2002. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which
provide 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.....”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government raised objections regarding the applicant's victim status
similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in the case of
Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 32-35,
29 June 2004. The Court considers that the
present objections must be rejected for the same reasons.
- The Court notes that the applicant's complaints are
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on
any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The Government stressed that they had taken all the
measures provided for by domestic legislation to enforce the judgment
given in the applicant's favour. They further
submitted that the judgment was enforced in full.
- The
applicant made no comments in that respect.
- The
Court observes that the judgment in the applicant's favour remained
unenforced for two years and four months.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases
raising similar issues to the ones in the present case (see Romashov
v. Ukraine, cited above, § 46, and Voytenko v. Ukraine,
cited above, §§ 33 and 55).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy
non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 December 2003. He also
complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the
lengthy consideration of his claim lodged in September 2002. He
finally complained under Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 that he
had been sentenced twice for the same offence and that the
compensation awarded to him was not paid within a reasonable period
of time.
- Having
carefully examined the applicant's submissions in the light of all
the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters
complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention.
28. It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article
35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly,
the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on
that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the
non-enforcement of the ruling of 19 April 2002 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 to the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 April 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Rait Maruste
Registrar President
