CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 novembre 2011

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA68D9128 { width:171.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15765/08 Mykola Grygorovych BULAKH against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President,   Elisabet Fura,   Karel Jungwiert,   Mark Villiger,   Ann Power-Forde,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 March 2008, Having regard to the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged on 21   March 2008 in the name of Mr   Mykola   Grygorovych Bulakh, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958, by his widow, Mrs Kateryna Vasylivna Bulakh. Subsequently, in her letter of 14   November 2008, she informed the Court about the death of her late husband on 11 May 2006, expressing, at the same time, her wish to pursue the application. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V.   Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 13 November 1998 Mr Bulakh instituted civil proceedings in the Makarivsky District Court against his employer seeking compensation for his occupational disability. Following repeated reconsiderations of the case by the courts of two judicial levels, on 2 June 2004 the Makarivsky Court partly allowed the claim and awarded Mr Bulakh UAH 14,009.97 [1] in compensation. On 12 October 2004 the court of appeal upheld the first instance judgment. On 11 May 2006 Mr Bulakh died. On 25 September 2007 the cassation instance, upon the parties’ appeal on points of law of 15 November 2004, confirmed the lower courts’ decisions. Mrs Bulakh did not take part in the proceedings. COMPLAINT   Mrs Bulakh complained about the length of the proceedings. She invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. She also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the outcome of the proceedings. THE LAW The Court first notes that the question arises whether the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of petition having regard to the circumstances of its introduction. In particular, the Court notes that the application was completed and signed by the applicant’s wife in his name as though he had been alive. She subsequently informed the Court that the applicant had died before the application was lodged. However, the Court leaves this question open, the application being in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. It recalls that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from individuals and others “claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto”. In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see, e.g., Gavrielidou and Others v. Cyprus , (dec.) no. 73802/01, 13   November   2003 with further reference to Buckley v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25   September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 56-59, and Valmont v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36385/97, 23 March 1999). Turning to the present case the Court observes that Mr   Bulakh had died on 11 May 2006, so about two years before the application was introduced in his name. It follows that the case has not been brought by a person who can be regarded as an applicant for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. Therefore, the application, in so far as it concerns Mr Bulakh, is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35   §   4. The Court further notes that Mrs Bulakh may not pursue the application in her own name as she was not a party to the domestic proceedings and she did not argue that there was an outstanding debt under the judgment of 2   June 2004 to which she could be entitled as an heir of Mr Bulakh. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Dean Spielmann   Registrar   President   [1] .     About 2,155 euros.