CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s51351B31 { margin-left:28.06pt; padding-left:7.94pt; font-family:serif; font-size:11pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   767 15.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] FIRST PILOT [2] JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF UKRAINE CONCERNING NON-EXECUTION OF FINAL DOMESTIC COURT DECISIONS Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (application no. 40450/04 )   Violation of Article 6 §1 (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 46, the Court noted that 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. The present case demonstrated that these problems had remained without a solution despite the clear Court’s case law urging Ukraine to take appropriate measures to resolve those issues. In view of the approximately 1400   applications against Ukraine currently pending before the Court and concerning the same questions, the Court concluded that an incompatible with the Convention practice existed in Ukraine and held unanimously that:   Ukraine had to introduce in its legal system, at the latest within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, an effective remedy which secured adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments; Ukraine had to grant such redress, including by reaching friendly settlements where possible, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants in such cases who had applied to the Court before the delivery of the present judgment, and whose applications had been communicated to the Ukrainian authorities; In the event that no redress was granted following this judgment, the Court will resume its examination of all similar pending applications with a view to adopting a judgment on them; that pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all new Ukranian cases concerning solely the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant the outstanding debt owed to him on the basis of the domestic courts’ judgments of 22   August 2001 and 29   July 2003, and 174   euros   (EUR) to cover inflation-linked adjustments. In addition, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,740 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Yuriy Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow, Russia.   In October 2000, Mr Ivanov retired from the Ukranian army. Although he was entitled to a lump-sum retirement payment and a compensation for his uniform, he was not paid those dues. As result in July 2001 he brought proceedings in court seeking recovery of his dept. The court decided in his favour in August 2001 and ordered the military unit to pay him about EUR   819 in all including for the court fees incurred. On an unspecified date, the debt in retirement payment arrears was paid to him, but not the rest. In April 2004 the bailiffs wrote to Mr Ivanov informing him that the military unit had no money to pay and that forced sale of its assets was prohibited by law. The August 2001 judgment remains partially unenforced.   In 2002 Mr Ivanov brought proceedings against the bailiffs claiming that they were at fault for the non-enforcement of the August 2001 judgment. The court found in his favour and ordered the bailiffs to identify and freeze the military unit accounts in order to seize the money available there. They did not comply. New proceedings were brought by Ivanov seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, in which the court granted his claim, partly, in July 2003. This judgment remains unenforced.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, on Article 13, and on Article 1 of protocol 1 of the Convention the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments of August 2001 and July 2003 and that he could not effectively challenge that at domestic level.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13   September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic) Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , Mykhaylo Buromenskiy (Ukraine), ad hoc judge , and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Non-enforcement and the right to property   The Court observed that August   2001 judgment had not been fully enforced so far, the delay in its enforcement having been about seven years and ten months. Likewise, the judgment of the July   2003 had remained unenforced for about five years and eleven months.   The Court noted that the delays had been caused by a combination of factors, including the lack of budgetary funds, the bailiffs’ omissions and shortcomings in the national legislation, as a result of which Mr Ivanov could not have the judgments enforced. The Court considered that all those factors had been within the control of the Ukrainian authorities and thus held that Ukraine had been fully responsible for the non-enforcement.   Having observed that it had frequently found violations of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1 in cases raising issues similar to those in the present case the Court found that there the Ukrainian Government had not presented any arguments capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Accordingly, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the August 2001 and July 2003 judgments.   Effective remedy against non-enforcement   The Court found that a remedy had not existed at national level satisfying the requirements of Article   13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov’s complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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 Convention, 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. [2] Since 2004 and in response to the large number of cases deriving from systemic or structural problems in certain countries the Court has developed a pilot-judgment procedure. This consists in identifying in a single judgment systemic problems underlying a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and indicating in that judgment the remedial measures required to resolve such situations. The pilot-judgment procedure is not only intended to facilitate effective implementation by respondent states of individual and general measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgments, but also induces the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at domestic level, thus reinforcing the principle of subsidiarity which underpins the Convention system.