CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 25 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 58747/19 Raisa Ivanivna OSTAPOVA against Ukraine lodged on 29 October 2019 communicated on 5 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final and binding judgment adopted in the applicant’s favour since the debtor (a State agency) is not operational. The applicant is a pensioner and resides in the Donetsk Region. Because of the military hostilities in Eastern Ukraine which started in 2014, the payment of her pension stopped in August 2014. On 2 August 2018 the Donetsk Circuit Administrative Court (relocated   to   the town of Kramatorsk) granted the applicant’s claims and ordered the Yenakiyeve Pension Fund Department in the Donetsk Region (“the   Department”), to resume, as of August 2014, the pension payments due to the applicant. The Department did not appeal against this judgment, and it became final and enforceable. However, even though the Department had been formally relocated from the armed-groups controlled town of Yenakiyeve to the government-controlled town of Lyman, as of the time of the introduction of the application it was not operational and the applicant’s judgment has remained unenforced. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 2   August   2018.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Does the impossibility to obtain enforcement of the final and binding judgment given in the applicant’s favour disclose, in the circumstances, a breach of her right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?