Search
document

KARPENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 17216/05;15168/07;1570/06;17002/06;17780/06;21009/07;33927/05;37560/06;38262/06;42368/07;49206/06 • ECHR ID: 001-119799

Document date: April 30, 2013

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

KARPENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 17216/05;15168/07;1570/06;17002/06;17780/06;21009/07;33927/05;37560/06;38262/06;42368/07;49206/06 • ECHR ID: 001-119799

Document date: April 30, 2013

Cited paragraphs only

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 17216/05 Vasiliy Ivanovich KARPENKO against Ukraine and 10 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Ann Power-Forde , Helena Jäderblom , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates stated in the annexed table,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04 , ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts)) ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are 11 Ukrainian nationals whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are tabulated below. The fifth applicant was represented by his son, Viktor Martynovych Slobodenyuk .

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy , of the Ministry of Justice.

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

On the dates set out in the annexed table below the national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (debtors) to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov cited above. By letters sent on different dates the respondent Government informed the Court that the debtors under the judgments were private persons or private legal entities. The Government referred to the Court ’ s case law that the State ’ s positive obligation to enforce a judgment against a private entity extends no further than the involvement of the State bodies in enforcement proceedings. For some applications the Government additionally referred to other inadmissibility reasons. The Government requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible.

The applicants disagreed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour.

THE LAW

The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.

The Court further notes that at the time the judgments in the applicants ’ favour were adopted the debtors were private persons or private legal entities. The Court recalls that the State cannot be held responsible for a private company ’ s debts and its responsibility extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Ponomaryov v. Ukraine , no. 3236/03, § 51, 3 April 2008 ).

The Court reiterates that, as it has already held in similar cases, the Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility to challenge before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs ’ Service in enforcement proceedings and to claim damages from that Service for delays in payment of the amount awarded (see, for instance, Kukta v. Ukraine ( dec .), no. 19443/03, 22 November 2005). In the present cases, the applicants failed to do so.

In the light of the foregoing, the applicants cannot be regarded as having exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under Ukrainian law (see Dovgal v. Ukraine ( dec .), no. 50726/06, ECHR 20 October 2009).

Having regard to its conclusion above the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine other arguments of the Government as to the inadmissibility of the applications concerned.

It follows that these complaints must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § § 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application

no. and date of introduction

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Final domestic decision details

17216/05

22/04/2005

Vasiliy Ivanovich KARPENKO

27/07/1950

Novogrodovka

Novogrodivka Court, 30/10/2001

33927/05

30/08/2005

Yaroslav Ivanovych STARYAT

28/11/1950

Peremozhne

Gorodotskyy District Court of Lviv , 20/06/2001

1570/06

20/12/2005

Illya Ivanovych NIKOLAYENKO

01/06/1952

Genichesk

Genichesk Court, 15/06/2004

17002/06

13/04/2006

Mykhaylo Petrovych KOZARCHUK

09/06/1941

Khmelnytskyy

Khmelnytskyy Court, 06/06/2002

17780/06

17/04/2006

Martyn Oleksandrovych SLOBODENYUK

02/03/1938

Nova Chortoryya

Lyubarskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 09/09/2002

37560/06

01/09/2006

Rayisa Vasylivna FATYEYEVA

14/04/1961

Udarnyk

Beryslavskyy District Court of Kherson Region, 28/12/005

38262/06

06/09/2006

Olga Borisovna GARSKAYA

28/04/1959

Oleksandriya

1) Oleksandriya Court , 29/04/2004

2) Oleksandriya Court , 01/06/2006

49206/06

18/11/2006

Yevdokiya Vasilyevna MELNIKOVA

13/07/1944

Torez

Torez Court, 14/06/2004

15168/07

23/03/2007

Yuriy Volodymyrovych LIPINSKYY

12/08/1966

Malyn

1) Malynskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 17/01/2000

2) Malynskyy District Court of Zhytomyr Region, 19/07/2001

21009/07

18/04/2007

Viktor Yakovlevich VASILYEV

04/01/1948

Torez

Torez Court, 14/06/2004

42368/07

18/09/2007

Volodymyr Mykolayovych RAKHUBA

(unspecified)

Maryanivka

1) Petrivskyy District Court of Kirovograd Region, 22/06/2006

2) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd , 21/05/2004

3) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd , 25/10/2004

4) Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd , 29/12/2004

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant