VIKTOR TARASENKO v. UKRAINE - 38762/03 [2006] ECHR 1049 (7 December 2006)

VIKTOR TARASENKO v. UKRAINE - 38762/03 [2006] ECHR 1049 (7 December 2006)

The Court found that the judgment in the applicant's favour was not enforced for more than three years and eleven months, and that the Government failed to provide convincing justification for the delay. This constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Citation
[2006] ECHR 1049
Parties
Applicant: Viktor Ivanovych Tarasenko; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Admissibility
Outcome
application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Lengthy Non Enforcement of Judgment, Right to a Fair Trial, Protection of Property, Effective Remedy
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Lengthy Non Enforcement of Judgment Right to a Fair Trial Protection of Property Effective Remedy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viktor Ivanovych Tarasenko

Applicant

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lengthy non-enforcement of a domestic judgment in favour of the applicant violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the judgment in the applicant's favour was not enforced for more than three years and eleven months, and that the Government failed to provide convincing justification for the delay. This constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The application is declared admissible.
  • There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.