FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 28943/06 Mykhaylo Grygorovych PIGUR against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 26 May 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Helena Jäderblom , Aleš Pejchal , judges,

and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mykhaylo Grygorovych Pigur , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Smilna .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In a judgment of 23 April 2000 the Drohobych Town Court ordered a private individual K. to demolish the building which impeded the applicant to use his plot of land . The judgment was not challenged on appeal and , therefore, became final and binding.

In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Drohobych Town Court, challenging the failure of the State Bailiffs ’ Service to enforce that judgment.

On 11 July 2002 the court found that the State Bailiffs ’ Service had failed to take all the necessary steps to demolish the building in execution of the judgment of 23 April 2000 and obliged the State Bailiffs ’ Service to enforce the judgment. The judgment of 23 April 2000 remained unenforced.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging that by failing to enforce the judgment, delivered in his favour, the State Bailiffs ’ Service violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property.

THE LAW

T he Court observes that the applicant challenged the alleged inactivity of the State Bailiffs ’ Service and that the competent courts allowed his complaint.

Moreover, under the Ukrainian legislation the applicant was entitled to claim compensation on account of the alleged non-enforcement. However, th e applicant failed to do so. Accordingly , he cannot be regarded as having exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under Ukrainian law (see, e.g., Polukhin v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 14278/07, 7 February 2012 , Kukta v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 19443/03, 22 November 2005 , and Dzizin v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 1086/02, 24 June 2003).

It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2015 .

Milan Blaško Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President