CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D419EF6 { width:141.06pt; display:inline-block } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s556D3942 { width:152.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42887/14 Stanislav Stanislavovych ZABOLOTNYY against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   42887/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 August 2014 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Stanislav Stanislavovych Zabolotnyy (“the applicant”), who was born in 1957 and lives in Berdychiv; the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr Ivan Lishchyna; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present application concerns the non-enforcement of a domestic court’s judgment rendered against private individuals. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     On 5 April 2000 the Berdychiv District Court of the Zhytomyr Region convicted O., Sh.V. and Sh.M. of raping the applicant’s daughter and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment. It also allowed a civil claim lodged by the applicant within the framework of the criminal case and ordered that O., Sh.V. and Sh.M. jointly pay the applicant 15,000   Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and UAH 250 in respect of legal fees. 3.     In April 2005 the applicant initiated court proceedings against the Bailiffs Service, seeking (i) a declaration that its inactivity was unlawful and (ii) compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2000. The case was examined several times by the domestic courts. 4.     On 17 April 2012 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine remitted the case to the Zhytomyr Administrative Court of Appeal in so far as it concerned the applicant’s claim for damages. It also upheld part of a decision delivered by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 27 April 2010 which had declared the inactivity of the Bailiffs Service between July 2001 and August 2006 to be unlawful. 5.     On 4 September 2012 the Zhytomyr Administrative Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, awarding him UAH 55,000, and dismissed his claim in respect of pecuniary damage. 6.     On 3 December 2013 the Higher Administrative Court reiterated the findings of its decision of 17 April 2012, holding that the inactivity of the Bailiffs Service had been unlawful. However, it reduced the amount of compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage to UAH 25,000 (around 2,315 euros). 7.     On 2 September 2014 the amount of UAH 25,000 was paid to the applicant. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 8.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the judgment of 5 April 2000 had not been enforced. 9.     The Court notes at the outset that the debtors in the applicant’s case are private individuals. In enforcement proceedings against private individuals, the responsibility of the State is limited to the organisation and proper conduct of the proceedings (see, for instance, Shestakov v. Russia   (dec.), no.   48757/99 , 18   June   2002). Moreover, the Court reiterates that Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of actions or omissions of the State Bailiffs Service in enforcement proceedings before the courts and of claiming damages from that body for any delay in payment of the sums awarded (see Dzizin v.   Ukraine   (dec.), no.   1086/02 , 24   June 2003, and Kukta   v Ukraine (dec.), no.   19443/03, 22   November 2005). 10.     In the present case, the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the inactivity of the Bailiffs Service before the domestic courts, which allowed his claim, declared that the inactivity of the Bailiffs Service had been unlawful and ordered the payment of compensation in the amount of UAH   25,000. That amount was subsequently paid. 11.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, that there has been a breach of the Convention and then afforded   redress   for that breach (see, for instance,   Murtić and Ćerimović v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina , no.   6495/09 , §   23, 19   June 2012). 12.     The Court observes that the domestic courts acknowledged the failure of the State to abide by its obligation to provide the applicant with assistance in the enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2000 and afforded him adequate compensation. Consequently, the applicant has ceased to have “victim” status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. 13.     It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae   with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.   {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Martina Keller   Andreas Zünd   Deputy Registrar   President