Information Note on the Court’s case-law 14

January 2000

Kaysin and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) - 46144/99

Decision 27.1.2000 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Non-enforcement of judgments on account of defendant State-owned company’s insolvency: admissible

The applicants who worked for a mining combine contracted an occupational disease which developed into a disability. S ince the company did not pay the disability pensions to which they were entitled, the applicants started proceedings in the Court of First Instance for payment of these pensions. The CFI allowed their actions in judgments it delivered between July 1997 and February 1998. However, in September 1998, the President of the CFI informed the applicants that the judgments would remain unenforced because the public authority upon which the combine was dependent was no longer in a position to pay out the funds requi red for its functioning. In January 1999 the President of the CFI ordered the combine to execute the judgments. In October 1999 the First Deputy of the President of the Supreme Court suspended the execution proceedings relating to the judgment in favour of the first applicant. Some days later, it transpired from the Justice Ministry’s internal correspondence that execution of a number of other judgments had also been suspended. Even though the Supreme Court then informed the combine that in fact only execut ion of the judgment in favour of the first applicant had been suspended, none of the judgments was executed.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1.

© 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