The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Renate Jaeger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vadim Viktorovich Vlasenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kryvy Rig, Dnipropetrovsk Region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Y. Zaytsev. 2 VLASENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the...
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 24897/03 by Vadim Viktorovich VLASENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Renate Jaeger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Vadim Viktorovich Vlasenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kryvy Rig, Dnipropetrovsk Region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Y. Zaytsev.
2 VLASENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant worked at a joint stock company, “K”. In 1995 he retired. In July 1995 a medical expert commission recognised the applicant as having a number of work-related illnesses. As a result K paid him a lump sum in compensation and started to pay him a monthly pension. On 1 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Kryvy Rig (“the District Court”) against K, seeking a recalculation of the above-mentioned payments. On 16 February 1999 the defendant requested the court to order an accountant’s report on the calculation of the payments in question. The court allowed this request. On 1 March 1999 the expert opinion was read out at a court hearing. On 18 March 1999 the District Court found for the applicant. On 25 October 1999, upon an appeal by the defendant, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (since June 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment on the ground that the first-instance court had wrongly calculated the amounts awarded, and ordered a retrial. The District Court’s hearing scheduled for 8 February 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s request because he was preparing an additional claim. This claim, apparently for additional payments, was lodged on 22 February 2000. Further additional claims were lodged by the applicant on 11 July 2001 and 4 March 2002. On 15 March 2000 the District Court ordered, at the defendant’s request, a forensic examination by an accountant. The defendant subsequently refused to bear the costs of the forensic examination in view of lack of funds and the expert terminated the examination. The file was transferred back to the District Court and the next hearing took place on 9 April 2001. On 17 July 2001 the District Court joined, at the defendant’s request, the local department of the State Social Security Fund (Виконавча дирекція Фонду соціального страхування від нещасни...