CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB87B81A { width:74.09pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   240 26.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nosovets v. Ukraine (application no 32021/03)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Zubko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04 and 11418/04) The applicant in the first case, Aleksey Pavlovich Nosovets, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Torez (Ukraine).   In June 2000 he was awarded certain sums for salary arrears owed to him by his employer, a State owned mining company. The decisions were not enforced until June 2004.   The applicants in the second case, Kostyantyn Antonovych Zubko, Iryna Fedorovna Oleksiyenko,   Oleksandr Ivanovych Yankul and Petro Mykolayovych Remez are all Ukrainian nationals who live in the Kirovograd region of Ukraine. The applicants are all judges apart from Mr   Yankul who is a retired judge. They were all awarded sums for salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delay in their payment from the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury. The judgments were not enforced for between 16 months and two-and-a-half years   All the applicants complain of the failure of the State authorities to execute judgments or decisions in their favour. They all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Nosovets and Ms Oleksiyenko also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in Zubko and Others v. Ukraine also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for years, a situation for which the Ukrainian Government had not provided any plausible justification.   In the case of Zubko and Others v. Ukraine the Court also found that failure of the State to provide judicial benefits to judges in a timely manner was incompatible with the need to ensure their ability to exercise their judicial functions independently and impartially.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in the case of Mr   Yankul and declared inadmissible the other applicants’ complaints under that article. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all the cases.   As regards the complaint under Article 13, the Court declared it inadmissible concerning Ms   Oleksiyenko. The Court found that Mr Nosovets had no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgments in question and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded for non pecuniary damage 1,600 euros (EUR) to Mr Nosovets, EUR 3,000 to Mr Zubko, Ms Oleksiyenko, and Mr Remez, and EUR 5,000 to Mr   Yankul. (The judgment in Nosovets v. Ukraine is available only in French and the judgment in Zubko and others v. Ukraine is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.