Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in 1945 and resides in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.

The applicant has worked as an English teacher in a secondary school since 1984.

On 23 March 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a new wording for the Education Act that provided for, in particular, the payment of certain benefits to teachers.

On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk against the Leninsky District Department for Education, claiming entitlement to those benefits. The applicant maintained that he had more than 10 years’ of service and was thus entitled to a 20% increase in his salary as from 1 January 1997. However, the defendant had not paid him this increase. He further maintained that the defendant had not paid him annual bonuses for excellent work and recreation. The defendant stated that the claimed amounts could not be paid because the State budgets for 1997-1999 did not make any provision for such expenditures.

On 5 October 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for an excellent work bonus as such a payment required an assessment of the applicant’s work which was outside the court’s competence. The court also rejected the applicant’s claim for unpaid benefits in 1997 and 1998 as being out of time, according to the law on employment disputes. The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for benefits after 1 June 1999 as the Secondary Education Act, adopted in May 1999, had suspended them. The court, however, awarded the applicant the claimed increase in salary for the period between 1 January and 1 June 1999.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Regional Court.

On 4 November 1999 the regional court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court noted, in particular, that the Secondary Education Act had entered into force on 23 June 1999; therefore the first instance court had erroneously overlooked the period between 1 and 23 June 1999.

On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk ruled against the applicant. The court found that, under the transitional clauses of the Secondary Education Act, the provision entitling the applicant to benefits would only resume force on 1 September 2001. Thus, at the time of the examination of the claim, there was no legal basis for it.

On 30 March 2000, the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. It observed that the claims of the applicant for the periods prior to the adoption of the Secondary Education Act could not be satisfied, since at the time of the consideration of the case the relevant provisions of the Education Act had been suspended by the Secondary Education Act. This decision was final.

At the material time, Article 233 of the Labour Code of Ukraine provided that employees could institute proceedings in respect of an employment dispute within three months from the date on which they learned or could have been expected to learn that there had been an infringement of their rights. By an Act of 11 July 2001, this article was supplemented by a provision repealing time-limits for disputes concerning salary arrears.

Article 57 of the Education (Amendment) Act 1996 provided for a 20% increase in salary for teachers who had worked in the education system for more than 10 years. The same article provided for an annual payment for recreation and an annual bonus for the performance of excellent work.

Between 23 June 1999 and 1 September 2001 these provisions were suspended by the Secondary Education Act mentioned below.

The second paragraph of Article 43 of the Secondary Education Act of 13 May 1999 provided that teachers of State and municipal secondary schools would be paid their salaries and benefits under Article 57 of the Education Act out of the State Budget of Ukraine. The transitional clause of the former Act stipulated that Article 43 would enter into force on 1 September 2001.


Violation of Art. 6-1 (non-enforcement of one judgment);Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses - financial award (global)

The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the village of Ivanivka, the Lugansk region of Ukraine.

On 6 September 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Court ordered the Krasnolutchska State Mine to supply the applicant with 8,850 kg of coal.

On 6 October 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.

On 5 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.

On 21 October 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.

On 30 July 2003 the same court ordered the Mine to supply the applicant with another 8,850 kg of coal.

On 1 September 2003 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 30 July 2003.

On 19 October 2004 that judgment was also enforced in full.

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-18, 27 July 2004).


Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant, Mr Juris Iļjins, is a Latvian national born in 1978 currently being detained in a prison in Olaine. He was represented before the Court by Ms B. Didrihsone, a lawyer practising in Riga.

It appears that the applicant was held in pre-trial detention in Valmiera Prison from 21 December 2007 to 1 April 2008 and from 13 May 2008 to 20 January 2009.

During these periods the applicant was placed in various disciplinary cells on fourteen occasions, for a total of 135 days. The first time he was detained in a disciplinary cell was on 9 January 2008, as punishment for a disciplinary offence (not complying with a warden’s instructions to stay in the cell allocated to him).

The applicant submitted that the conditions in the disciplinary cells in Valmiera Prison had been as follows. There had been no natural light, as the window in each cell had been covered by a metal plate; the artificial lighting provided had not been sufficient. The cells had been damp and stuffy, as there had been no ventilation. Paint had chipped off every surface. The walls and ceiling had been mouldy. The toilets had not been partitioned, had been visible from corridor and there had been no toilet seats. There had been no sinks either; the water supply had been mounted above the toilets. The cells had been infested with insects and bugs.

On 24 July 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office (Tiesībsarga birojs), among other things, about the conditions of detention in the disciplinary cells in Valmiera Prison.

On 1 September 2008 the applicant was informed that the Ombudsman had opened an inquiry.

On 24 September 2008 the Ombudsman delivered his opinion. He mentioned that on 13 February 2008 his employees had visited the disciplinary cells in Valmiera Prison, and had described the conditions there as follows. The cells had measured approximately 7 sq. m. The toilets had not been partitioned, had been visible through a window in the door and there had been no toilet seats. There had been no sinks either; the water supply had been mounted above the toilets. There had been one foldable plank bed and a small table, but no other furniture. Paint had chipped off part of the walls. The ceiling had been cracked and mouldy. The cells had been damp, as ventilation (natural and artificial) had not been sufficient. The cells had not been well-lit (only one light bulb above each door). There had been a window in each cell but it had been covered with a metal plate, meaning there had been no natural light.

The Ombudsman concluded that the conditions in the cells did not comply with either domestic law or international standards. He advised the applicant to institute administrative proceedings under section 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law (an “action of a public authority”) by lodging a complaint with the head of the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde) and subsequently with the administrative courts.

On 6 October 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prisons Administration about the conditions of detention in Valmiera Prison. He indicated that his complaint related to an “action of a public authority” (faktiskā rīcība) and claimed compensation in the amount of 10,000 Latvian lati (LVL) (approximately 14,245 euros (EUR)).

On 10 November 2008 the Prisons Administration dismissed the applicant’s complaint and considered that the conditions in the disciplinary cells complied with domestic law. The applicant was informed that he had one month to appeal against this decision to the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa).

The applicant had lodged an application with the Administrative District Court prior to submitting his complaint to the Prisons Administration. He subsequently amended his application on two occasions and asked to be exempted from the payment of State duty (court fees).

On 20 January 2009 the Administrative District Court stayed the proceedings and requested that the relevant authorities submit information.

On 15 April 2009 the Administrative District Court decided to exempt the applicant from the payment of State duty, accepted his application and commenced the administrative proceedings (under case no. A42746109). His application was deemed to have been submitted on 14 August 2008, the date of his initial application.

It appears that hearings were scheduled for 15 September 2010 and 20 October 2010. It is not clear why these did not take place. The case was eventually heard on 23 March 2011.

On 13 April 2011 the Administrative District Court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim. The court largely relied on the Ombudsman’s conclusions and found that the applicant’s account of the conditions largely coincided with the conditions as established by the Ombudsman’s inquiry. The court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of LVL 2,000 (approximately EUR 2,849).

The applicant and his representative, a State-appointed lawyer, did not lodge an appeal against this judgment, but the Prisons Administration did. It appears that an appeal hearing was scheduled for 25 October 2012, but did not take place. The case was eventually heard on 10 January 2013.

On 22 February 2013 the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa – “the Regional Court”) delivered a judgment quashing the lower court’s ruling and upholding the applicant’s claim in part. It specified that the claim concerned an action of a public authority (Valmiera Prison), and examined its lawfulness. The Regional Court took into account the lack of toilet partitioning and the fact that the toilets did not have seats, that the water supply had been mounted above the toilets, and that there had been inadequate lighting and ventilation. These conditions were considered to be degrading, and their cumulative effects contrary to Article 95 of the Constitution (Satversme) and Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the action of a public authority (Valmiera Prison) in placing the applicant in those conditions was found to be unlawful.

As concerns compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Regional Court noted that an adequate award of compensation would be LVL 3,000 (approximately EUR 4,273). However, given that the applicant had been placed in disciplinary cells for his own actions and had waited for several months after his initial placement there before lodging his first complaint, the amount had to be reduced in accordance with domestic law. The Regional Court awarded the applicant LVL 600 (approximately EUR 855) and dismissed the remainder of his non-pecuniary damage claim (LVL 1,400, approximately EUR 1,994). An appeal on points of law could be lodged against this judgment within one month of its delivery.

The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law, indicating that the applicant considered the Regional Court’s ruling to be unlawful. No further reasons were provided.

By a final decision on 12 April 2013, three senators of the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings on the basis of section 328(1)(5) and section 338.1 of the Administrative Procedure Law. The proceedings did continue, however, as regards the applicant’s (other) claim examined within the same proceedings about an action of a public authority (Valmiera Prison) as regards its refusal to transfer him to another cell or to another prison for security reasons. The applicant eventually withdrew that claim, and on 9 May 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court adopted a final decision relating to it.

On 22 April 2013 the applicant’s lawyer attempted to lodge an ancillary complaint (blakus sūdzība) against the Senate’s decision. She explained that she had not been made aware of the Regional Court’s judgment until 20 March 2013. She could not submit a fully reasoned appeal on points of law within the necessary time-limit, so in accordance with the applicant’s instructions, she had lodged the appeal on points of law without specifying its scope. In doing so, she had relied on section 333 of the Administrative Procedure Law. She requested that the Senate’s ruling be quashed.

On 24 April 2013 these submissions were returned back to the applicant’s lawyer with a handwritten note by a judge stating: “in accordance with section 324(4) of the Administrative Procedure Law [the complaint] is to be considered as not submitted and to be returned”.

It appears that the applicant attempted to lodge another appeal on points of law, which was received at the Supreme Court on 25 April 2013. No further information has been submitted to the Court in this regard.

The relevant parts of the Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums), which took effect on 1 February 2004, have been summarised in the case of Melnītis v. Latvia (no. 30779/05, §§ 24-26, 28 February 2012).

In accordance with sections 307(5) and 267 of the Administrative Procedure Law, an appellate court judgment is to be sent to parties within three days of its delivery, unless it has been served on them in person.

Section 324(4) provides, inter alia, that an ancillary complaint lodged against a final decision must be considered as not submitted and returned.

Section 328(1)(4) provides that an appeal on points of law must contain the extent to which a judgment is appealed.

Section 328(1)(5) provides that an appeal on points of law must indicate what provisions of substantive or procedural law a court has breached and how this breach is manifested.

Section 333(1) provides that where an appeal on points of law does not comply with the criteria laid down in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 of section 328(1) a senator must take a decision not to proceed with it (atstāt bez virzības). In the decision a time-limit for rectifying the deficiencies shall be set.

Section 338.1 provides that three senators shall refuse to open cassation proceedings (atteikties ierosināt kasācijas tiesvedību) if an appeal on points of law does not comply with the criteria laid down in sections 325, 326, 327, 328 and 329.


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant, Ms Ayshat Azretovna Gochayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Tyrnyauz in the Kabardino-Balkaruya Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Kuchukov, a lawyer practising in Nalchik. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the owner of a flat in a block of flats in Elbrusskiy Avenue in the town of Tyrnyauz in the Kabardino-Balkaruya Republic. She lived in the flat with her family.

In July 2000 some of the residential quarters of Tyrnyauz were flooded as a result of a powerful mudslide. Many buildings were destroyed or damaged and many people were killed or injured. The mudslide also destroyed a bridge in the vicinity of the applicant’s block of flats.

On 28 August 2003 the Tyrnyauz Town Council decided to build a new bridge. The municipal land on which the applicant’s block of flats was situated was allocated for that purpose. The Town Council sued the residents for eviction.

On 12 September 2003 the Elbrusskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic ordered that the applicant’s family be evicted from their flat and that the Tyrnyauz Town Council provide them with other comfortable housing of an equal value. Eviction of other 31 families from the same block of flats or from the neighbouring blocks of flats was ordered by the same judgment. On the same day the court issued a writ of execution.

The applicant appealed.

On 2 October 2003 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings. On 10 October 2003 the bailiffs forcibly evicted the applicant’s family from the flat. No substitute housing was provided.

On 11 November 2003 the applicant’s block of flats was demolished.

On 3 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic quashed the judgment of 12 September 2003. It held that the District Court had unlawfully joined the proceedings concerning 32 families and had ordered their eviction without taking into account particular circumstances of each family, that it had not informed some of the defendants about the date of the hearing, that the defendants had not been offered a choice between monetary compensation and substitute housing. It further held that the District Court should have identified a specific flat for the applicant’s family and that the eviction should have been made conditional on making that flat available or on payment of monetary compensation.

The case was remitted before the District Court for a new examination.

On 20 May 2004 the applicant lodged a counterclaim for damages. She submitted that the eviction of her family and the demolition of her flat had been unlawful for the following reasons. Firstly, at the time of the eviction the eviction order had not yet been enforceable because an appeal had been pending against the judgment of 12 September 2003. Secondly, no substitute housing had been provided. She argued that she had been unlawfully deprived of her home and property and claimed 420,230 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage representing the cost of a flat of an equal value. She also claimed RUB 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage against the Elbrusskiy District Court and the bailiffs’ service.

On 9 December 2004 the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The court found that the expropriation of the applicant’s flat and the eviction of her family had been necessary for the purpose of bridge construction. However, the eviction had been carried out unlawfully as the applicant had not received any prior compensation or been offered substitute housing. It ordered that the construction company that had demolished the applicant’s block of flats pay her RUB 420,230 in respect of pecuniary damage. It further rejected the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, finding that there had been no evidence of unlawfulness in the acts of the Elbrusskiy District Court and the bailiffs’ service. The fault belonged to the Tyrnyauz Town Council against which no claim for non-pecuniary damage had been lodged.

The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and it became final and enforceable ten days later.

The construction company lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment which was examined on 23 June 2005 by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic. The Presidium amended the operative part of the judgment of 9 December 2004, ordering that the award in respect of pecuniary damage should be payable by the Tyrnyauz Town Council.

The applicant received the award on 14 November 2006.

No one shall be deprived of his property except on the basis of a court order. Expropriation of property in the public interest shall be conditional on prior and full compensation (Article 35 § 3 of the Constitution).

A judgment of the first-instance court becomes final and enforceable after the expiry of the time-limit for lodging an appeal or after it has been upheld by the appeal court (Articles 209 § 1 and 210 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure of 14 November 2002).

In exceptional cases, where a delay in enforcement can cause considerable damage or impossibility of enforcement, a court may order, at the plaintiff’s request, immediate enforcement of the judgment. Such an order shall be made in the operative part of the judgment or in a separate decision which is amenable to appeal. The decision shall be taken after a hearing and the parties shall be appraised of its date (Articles 204 and 212).

A writ of execution is issued by a court after the judgment has become final or an order for immediate enforcement has been made (Article 428).