Ukraine continues paying out salary debts through the European court for human rights
Yesterday the European court for human rights pronounced verdicts on three cases against Ukraine unanimously recognizing the violation by the country of the right for fair trial and the right for free management of ones property, as well as the absence of efficient national tools for protection of these rights in Ukraine. Besides, violation of the right for fair trial because of unreasonable term of trial was acknowledged in one case.
In these cases Ukrainians Viktor Demchenko (Donetsk), Valeriy Vasylenkov (Novogrodovka), Sergiy Hryshchenko, Volodymir Kayurov, Anatoliy Zavgorodiansky, Marina Tomayly, Olga Lopatina (all from Zhovti Vody) complained that during 1999-2001 court decisions in their favor were had been issued, which had come to force. According to these decisions they had to obtain different payments, but the decisions have not been fulfilled.
The European court for human rights pointed out in its decisions that non-fulfillment of court decisions during more than 2-3 years makes the existence of the right for fair trial senseless (Article 6 of the European Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms). At that the government did not provide arguments, which could justify such duration of non-fulfillment of the decisions. Since during all this time the claimants could not use their legal property (their money), in two cases the court also recognized violation by the state the right of these persons for property.
The European court for human rights obliged Ukraine to pay out to the claimants the total sum of 10 thousand 800 euros (2040-2400 euros to each).
In one more case after the claim of Kyiv dweller Mykola Strannikov the European court for human rights also recognized the violation by Ukraine of the right for fair trial, but for another reason.
As early as in 1995 he brought a suit regarding his acknowledgement as the founder of a private enterprise (Kyiv timber plant) and payment of the compensation by this plant. This case was investigated for 8 years and 8 months in courts of four levels and was not solved. The European court unanimously recognized this term to be “unreasonable” in the context of duration of its consideration. The court decided that the claimant had to get the compensation of 2 thousand euro for the inflicted damage.
Decisions on these cases will become final, unless the government appeals against them within the some period of time. However, in such cases it happens extremely seldom.
5 May 2005