CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mars 2007

.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 } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ED97E6D { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFD69004D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17327/02 by Oleksandr Veniaminovych LUKYANCHENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27   March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleksandr Veniaminovych Lukyanchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Khmelnytskyy. A.     The criminal prosecution and the compensation proceedings In April 1998 the law-enforcement authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated hooliganism and possession of arms. In connection with this investigation, on 15   April   1998 the applicant was arrested and kept in custody until 28   April   1998. In September 1998 the criminal proceedings were discontinued on exonerative grounds as regards hooliganism and on non ‑ exonerative grounds (amnesty) as regards the possession of arms. In February   1999 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Khmelnytskyy Court ( Хмельницький міський суд ) seeking moral damages from the State for his criminal prosecution. On   29   July   1999 the Khmelnytskyy Court left the applicant’s complaint without consideration, having found that he should have instituted civil proceedings. On 19   August   1999 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court (“The Regional Court,” Хмельницький обласний суд ) [1] upheld this decision and it became final. On 2   June   2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above decisions following a “ protest ” introduced by the Deputy Head of the Supreme Court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 29   November   2000 the Khmelnytskyy Court partly allowed the applicant’s compensation claim and awarded him UAH   6,000. [2] On 29   March   2001 the Regional Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 22   June   2001 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the Prosecutor’s Office’s had refused to submit the criminal case materials to the court on the ground that the investigation against him was still pending. Subsequently the Prosecutors’ Office retracted the notice of the applicant’s being under investigation at the time as erroneous. On 19   July   2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court awarded the applicant UAH   3,000. [3] On 16   October   2001 the Regional Court decreased the amount of compensation to UAH   140. [4] The applicant appealed in cassation. On 1   February   2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation and the judgment of 16   October   2001 became final. Since then the applicant has unsuccessfully tried to re-open the proceedings seeking higher compensation. On   27   February   2002 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the State Treasury. The judgment given in his favour has not been enforced. B.     Other events 1.     Assaults against the applicant On   16   February   1995 the applicant was gun wounded. On 17   February   1995 criminal proceedings were instituted to investigate the incident, however, the assaulter has not been identified. According to the applicant, an unnamed investigator in charge of the above proceedings threatened to have him killed and the law-enforcement authorities failed to react at his respective complaints. The applicant did not raise these complaints before the national courts. 2.     Other proceedings In 2002-2006 the applicant also submitted additional materials containing his correspondence with the authorities on a number of issues and copies of court decisions given in various proceedings brought by him against the law enforcement authorities, the courts, the ombudsman, and against the bank “A.” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 about the length of his compensation proceedings and the non-enforcement of the judgment of 16   October   2001 in his favour. 2.     The applicant further complains, referring to the above provision, that the compensation awarded to him was inadequate. 3.     The applicant also complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the ineffective investigation into his wounding in 1995 and about the unpunished threats from the investigator. 4.     The applicant also invokes Articles   3, 5   §   1, 7, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No.   7 with regard to the facts of the present case. 5.     Lastly, the applicant generally complains that Ukraine does not respect human rights. THE LAW A.     Complaints about the length of proceedings and about the non ‑ enforcement of the judgment The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in respect of his compensation claim was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He further complained that the final judgment of 16   October   2001 given in his favour remained unenforced. This provision provides, 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. ...” 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.     Remainder of the complaints Having carefully considered the remainder of the applicant’s submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35   §§   1,   3   and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the non-enforcement of a final court judgment; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President [1] .     Since July 2001 – the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Хмельницької області). [2] .     1,289.22 euros (“EUR). [3] .     EUR   640.46. [4] .     EUR   29.00.