CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 avril 2008

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s1584CB66 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 26675/07 by Mykola Oleksiyovych BYKOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22   April   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 June 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mykola Oleksiyovych Bykov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Syrotyne, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant worked at “Obyednannya Azot” ( Сєверодонецьке державне виробниче підприємство «Об’єднання Азот» ), a State chemical company, from 1978. According to the applicant, in December   2000 – January 2001 he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphocytic leukaemia ( хронічний лімфолейкоз ), a blood cancer. On 26   June 2001 the diagnosis was reaffirmed by a medical expert commission and he was recognized as having a work-related disease. In June 2001 the applicant was dismissed because of his absence from work. The applicant alleged that the real reason for his dismissal was his attempts to establish a casual link between his disease and his work. In July 2001 an internal investigation on the applicant’s disease was held. A report of 16 July 2001 revealed a number of shortcomings, including a lack of minimum work safety conditions, which had led to the applicant’s disease The applicant is now in the final stages of the disease. 1. Civil proceedings In January 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against “Obyednannya Azot” challenging the reason for his dismissal and seeking compensation for his work-related disease. Subsequently these claims were severed. On 29   May 2002 the court stayed the compensation proceedings pending the determination of the dismissal proceedings. On 23   December 2004 the Severodonetsk Town Court discontinued the dismissal proceedings as the parties had reached a settlement. The compensation proceedings, accordingly, continued. On 20 July 2005 and 15   August 2006 the court ordered forensic medical and psychiatric examinations. On an unspecified date the local department of the State Social Security Fund ( Сєверодонецьке відділення виконавчої дирекції Фонду соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань ) was joined to the applicant’s case as a co ‑ defendant. The applicant contends that, on 19   January 2007, in order to expedite examination of his case, he was required to re-lodge his claim against the State Social Security Fund for compensation for his work-related disease in administrative proceedings (see below). He also requested the court to discontinue this limb of his civil proceedings. At the same time, he made a fresh claim against “Obyednannya Azot”, seeking compensation for his unlawful dismissal, and requesting the court to continue this limb of the civil proceedings. These requests were granted on the same day. On 20 April 2007 the Severodonetsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims against “Obyednannya Azot”. On 4 December 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and rendered a new one. In particular, it found in part for the applicant and awarded him 1,500 [1] Ukrainian hryvnias in compensation for his unlawful dismissal. It is not clear from the applicant’s submissions whether he appealed in cassation against the judgment of 4 December 2007. 2. Administrative proceedings On 19   January 2007 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against the local department of the State Social Security Fund seeking insurance sum and compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage as a result of his work-related disease. On 19 June 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 14   September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 19 June 2007. The applicant appealed in cassation and the proceedings are still pending before the Higher Administrative Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State authorities had failed to provide him with safe work conditions which, in turn, had led to his disease. He also invoked Articles 3, 4 and 8 of the Convention. Referring to Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the courts’ assessment of the evidence and interpretation of the law. He also complained of the length of the court proceedings as a whole. He further complained under Article 13 about a lack of effective remedies for his complaint in respect of the length of these proceedings. The applicant further referred to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaining of impossibility to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage. THE LAW A.     The length of the civil proceedings The applicant complained that the length of these 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. B.     Other complaints The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints and considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and in so far 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 or its Protocols. It follows that 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 complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the length of the civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in this respect. Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Claudia W esterdiek   Peer L orenzen   Registrar   President [1] About 206.06 euro