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 concern ed 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 sinc e 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 ap proximately 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 eff ective 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 unilat eral 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 pen ding 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 delaye d 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