CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 123 October 2009 Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine - 40450/04 Judgment 15.10.2009 [Section V] Article 46 Pilot judgment General measures Respondent State required to introduce an effective remedy securing redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments and to grant redress to all victims in pending cases of this kind Facts – The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of judgments in his favour and of the lack of an effective remedy at the domestic level. Law – Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46: The case concerned two recurring problems: the prolonged non-enforcement of final domestic decisions and the lack of an effective domestic remedy to deal with it. These problems lay behind the most frequent violations of the Convention continuously found by the Court since 2004 in over 300   cases in respect of Ukraine. It was therefore evident that the respondent State had demonstrated an almost complete reluctance to resolve the problems despite having been urged by the Court to take appropriate measures. In view of the approximately 1,400   applications currently pending against Ukraine concerning the same questions, the Court concluded that this was a practice incompatible with the Convention and, in line with its approach in the case of Burdov v.   Russia (no.   2) (no.   33509/04, 15   January 2009, Information Note no.   115), considered it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure. The Court ruled that Ukraine must introduce in its legal system, at the latest within one year from the Court’s judgment becoming final, an effective remedy which secured adequate and sufficient redress for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments and complied with the key criteria set in the Court’s case-law. Ukraine was also required to grant redress, including by unilateral remedial offers or friendly settlements where possible, to all current applicants in such cases whose applications were communicated to the Government. In the event that no redress was granted, the Court would resume its examination of all similar pending applications. Pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court would adjourn for the same one-year period the proceedings in all Ukrainian cases lodged after the delivery of the present judgment and concerning solely the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments. Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant the amount of the outstanding judgment debts with an adjustment to cover inflation. It also awarded EUR   2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes