This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. STRATEYCHUK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Strateychuk v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr P. LORENZEN, President, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr J. BORREGO BORREGO, Mrs R. JAEGER, Mr M. VILLIGER, judges, and Mrs C. WESTERDIEK, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 25543/02) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Strateychuk (“the...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STRATEYCHUK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 25543/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 April 2007 FINAL 26/07/2007 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
STRATEYCHUK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Strateychuk v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mr P. LORENZEN, President, Mr K. JUNGWIERT, Mr V. BUTKEVYCH, Mrs M. TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA, Mr J. BORREGO BORREGO, Mrs R. JAEGER, Mr M. VILLIGER, judges, and Mrs C. WESTERDIEK, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 25543/02) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Strateychuk (“the applicant”), on 12 September 2001. 2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev. 3. On 17 October 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia region. 5. On 30 May 2000 the Berdyansk Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,423.39 against the JSC “Yuzhgidromash”, a company in which the State owned 25% of the shares (hereinafter “YGM”) in compensation for salary arrears.
2 STRATEYCHUK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT 6. On 7 July 2000 the Berdiansk Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings in the case. 7. On 26 June 2001 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of Order no. 33/5 of 1 June 2001 of the Minister of Justice and the moratorium on the forced sale of the YGM's property. 8. On 24 July 2001 the Berdiansk State Tax Administration informed the applicant that all YGM's property was under tax lien. 9. On 1 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the YGM. 10. On 12 April 2002 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of the above bankruptcy proceedings. 11. On 22 March 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed and on 2 April 2004 the Bailiffs attached the debtor's property. 12. During June 2004 – January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were suspended as the debtor challenged the Bailiffs' acts before the Berdyansk Court. 13. On 10 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. 14. On 16 J...