CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s6F46AFCC { width:233.12pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17026/05 by Ivan Yosifovich GITSKAYLO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27   November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2005, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ivan Yosifovich Gitskaylo, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and lives in the village of Yasonovskiy, Lugansk Region, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the former employee of the Frunze State Mine. He is suffering from an occupational disease. On 13 June 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Rovenkovskiy Town Court against his former employer, claiming to identify the profession due to which he was suffering from an occupational disease, and seeking recovery of his occupational disability allowance arrears. On 6 March 1998 the proceedings were terminated before the Town   Court as the parties had reached a friendly settlement under which the Frunze State Mine was to pay the applicant UAH 947.50 [1] in compensation. On 23 December 1998 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court quashed the decision of 6 March 1998 upon a “ protest ” (протест в порядке надзора) lodged with it by the Deputy President of the Lugansk Regional Court, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It was established that the first instance court had not examined possible consequences of this decision for the parties. On 29 February 2000 the Rovenkovskiy Town Court partly found for the applicant. On 1 March 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court quashed this decision for the first instance court’s failure to examine thoroughly all the applicant’s claims. The case was remitted for a fresh consideration. On 26 September 2001 the Rovenkovskiy Town Court partly found for the applicant. The court identified the profession due to which the applicant was suffering from an occupational disease; however it rejected all the applicant’s compensation claims. On 27 December 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court partly quashed this decision in respect of the occupational disability allowance arrears, and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration On 26 April 2002 the Rovenkovskiy Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 8 August 2002 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 1 November 2002 the Rovenkovskiy Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 5 May 2003 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal changed this decision and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH   103.72 [2] . On 17 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. This decision was served on the applicant on 14 February 2005. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 about the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings in the case to which he was a party and under Article 13 about lack of an effective remedy for his complaint. He further complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about an unfair outcome of the proceedings in his case. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided in Article   6   § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The applicant further complained of the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaint about a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He invoked Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:   “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 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 the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicant further complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about an unfair outcome of the proceedings in his case. The Court finds nothing to show that the proceedings were unfair or that the court decisions reached were arbitrary or otherwise manifestly unreasonable. The applicant enjoyed the right to adversarial proceedings with the participation of interested parties and was able to introduce all necessary arguments in defence of his interests, and the judicial authorities gave them due consideration. Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s civil claim and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President [1] . Around USD 474. [2] . Around 18 euros (EUR)