CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 septembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCF1862B4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s50F0042F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s45EC7D31 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .sC2E0339F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sFDC449CE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA699FBB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s267B8157 { width:220.81pt; display:inline-block } .sD1588554 { width:5.94pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4773/02 by Viktor Grigoryevich SYCHEV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Viktor Grigoryevich Sychev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Gorlovka, the Donetsk Region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The first litigation On 14 September 1999 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka awarded the applicant UAH 10,798.45 (EUR 1,663) against the Lenina coal-mine (the “LCM”) for arrears in industrial disablement benefits. The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Gorlovka City Execution Service (the “Service”). On 31 October 2000 the court ordered the Service to send the writ of execution to the LCM’s liquidation commission, instituted by the decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings against the LCM. The liquidation commission was comprised of representatives of the LCM’s creditors, including the State Pension Fund. On 17 November 2000 the applicant was informed by the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice that it was impossible to transfer the writ of execution to the liquidation commission as no such commission had in fact been created. On 26 January 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration rejected the applicant’s complaint about the liquidation commission’s inactivity. The court acknowledged that the commission had not produced the liquidation balance, as it was supposed to do under the bankruptcy law. The court, however, indicated that the national legislation envisaged no time-limit for that, neither did it provide any sanctions for the commission’s inactivity. 2.     The second litigation On 10 April 1995 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka awarded the applicant 109,581,000 Ukrainian karbovanets [1] against S.V.G. and N.Y.F. (private persons, previously convicted of stealing the applicant’s motorbike) in damages. On 2 October 1995 the court increased the awarded sum to 212,838,000 Ukrainian Karbovanets, taking into account the inflation rate. In January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against S.V.G. and N.Yu.F., claiming compensation for inflation between April 1995 and the date of payment. On 14 September 1999 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka allowed this claim, ordering the defendants to pay the applicant UAH 1,815 [2] . On 23 February 2000, following the supervisory protest of the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court, the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 September 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 2 April 2001 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court indicated that the applicant was repaid in full the sum awarded to him (that is to say UAH 2,018 [3] ), which completely covered the damage incurred as the result of the crime and even exceeded the current price of the motorbike (UAH 950 [4] , according to the expert’s opinion). On 14   May 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld this decision. 3.     The third litigation In October 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Industrial Accidents Insurance Fund in respect of its allegedly unlawful refusal to increase his industrial disablement benefits. On 26 December 2002 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 5 May 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. COMPLAINTS With respect to the first litigation the applicant complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the court judgment of the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka of 14   September   1999 given in his favour. He also alleges that he has no effective remedy with respect to his complaints. The applicant alleges that he was subjected to slavery due to the fact that his work was not remunerated. He invokes Article   4   §   1 of the Convention. As to the second and third litigations, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness. THE LAW 1.     The first litigation (a)     The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention According to the applicant, the non-enforcement of the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka’s judgment of 14 September 1999 infringed Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. (b)     The applicant’s complaints under Article 4 § 1 of the Convention The applicant also alleges that non-enforcement of the judgment in issue infringed Article 4 § 1 of the Convention, which as far as relevant provides as follows: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude...” The Court notes that the applicant performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment was never denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery within the meaning of this provision. 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 (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). 2.     The second and third litigation The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (cited above) about the unfairness of the proceedings in his disputes about index-linked compensation for a stolen motorbike and the amount of industrial disablement benefits. The Court recalls that it is not called upon to examine the alleged errors of facts and law committed by the domestic judicial authorities, insofar as no unfairness of the proceedings can be detected and the decisions reached cannot be considered arbitrary. On the basis of the materials submitted by the applicant, the Court notes that, within the framework of the civil proceedings, the applicant was able to introduce all necessary arguments in defence of his interests, and the judicial authorities gave them due consideration. It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment given in the applicant’s favour (Article 6 § 1) and a lack of effective remedies in that respect (Article 13); Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   S. Dollé   J.-P.Costa   Registrar President [1] .     The transitional currency of Ukraine which existed before 1996. [2] .     EUR 280. [3] .     EUR 311. [4] .     EUR 146.