I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SAFONOV AND SAFONOVA v. UKRAINE.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-06-18
  • Communication date: 2018-10-08
  • Application number(s): 24391/10
  • Country:   UKR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 13, P1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6-1 - Access to court
    Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings
    Right to a fair trial)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.562112
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicants, Mr Eduard Yuryevich Safonov and Ms Natalya Olegovna Safonova, are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Yalta.
2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A.
First set of proceedings 3.
In June 2001 the applicants instituted proceedings at the Yalta City Court (“the Yalta Court”) against the Yalta City Council (“the Yalta Council”) seeking to declare as “suitable for living” the building at 39 ”г” Kirova Street in Yalta (“the Kirova building”), in which they had been residing since 1982 and which, according to them, was of no one’s property.
They also requested the Yalta Court to oblige the Yalta Council to transfer the Kirova building to a communal property and to issue them a title to live therein (ордер на квартиру).
4.
On 19 September 2001 the Yalta Court allowed the applicants’ claim.
On an unspecified date this decision became final.
5.
On 24 January 2003 the Executive Committee of the Yalta Council took a decision providing the applicants with a right to reside in apartment no.
2 at the Kirova building (“the flat no.
2”).
6.
On 5 October 2004, following a decision of the Executive Committee of the Yalta Council, the applicants and their minor son became owners of flat no.
2 and the relevant privatisation certificates were issued to them.
7.
On 6 October 2004 the Yalta Technical Inventory Bureau (“the Inventory bureau”) – a State unitary enterprise in charge, under Ukrainian law, of registration of real estate and development deals – registered the applicants’ property rights over flat no.
2.
8.
On 7 September 2005 the Yalta Council excluded the Kirova building from the communal property register as the apartments therein had been privatised by their residents.
By the same decision, the Kirova building was transferred to the joined private property of the applicants and of the owners of the building’s other flats.
9.
On unspecified date the Company “Sanatoriy imeni Kirova” Ltd. (“Company 1”) applied to the Yalta Court with a request for reopening of the proceedings and review of the judgment of 19 September 2001 (see paragraph 4 above) under newly-discovered circumstances.
It claimed to be the owner of the Kirova building.
10.
On 18 November 2005 the Yalta Court allowed Company’s 1 request, quashed the judgment of 19 September 2001 and reopened the proceedings.
In the course of the proceedings, Company 1 submitted a counter-claim seeking, inter alia, to: annul the decisions of the Yalta Council of 24 January 2003 and 7 September 2005 (see paragraphs 5 and 8 above); invalidate the applicants’ property certificates over flat no.
2; and to evict them.
11.
On 12 December 2005 and 20 February 2006 the Yalta Court issued injunctions prohibiting alienation of flat no.
2.
12.
On 15 June 2006 the Yalta Court rejected the applicants’ claim and partly allowed the claim of Company’s 1.
The court annulled the decisions of the Yalta Council of 24 January 2003 and 7 September 2005 and invalidated the applicants’ property certificates over flat no.
2.
13.
On 24 October 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARK”) quashed the above-mentioned judgment and remitted the case for new examination to the first-instance court.
14.
On 15 May 2007 the Yalta Court rejected the applicants’ and Company’s 1 claims.
It found, inter alia, that there had been no need to oblige the Yalta Council to provide the applicant’s with an apartment, as claimed by the applicant in 1998, as by that time the apartment had been transferred to the private property of the applicants and their entitlement to it was not in dispute.
The court further found no evidence to conclude that the Kirova building had belonged to Company 1.
15.
On 15 October 2007 the Court of Appeal of the ARK quashed the above-mentioned judgment, rejected the applicants’ claim and partly allowed that of Company 1.
It annulled the decisions of the Yalta Council of 24 January 2003 and 7 September 2005 (see paragraphs 5 and 8 above), invalidated the applicants’ property certificates over flat no.
2. and ordered the Inventory Bureau to register Company 1 as the owner of the Kirova building.
Company’s 1 claim for the applicants’ eviction was rejected.
16.
The applicants lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
In the meantime, Company 1 had registered its property rights over the Kirova building and on 17 January 2008 had sold it to the Company “Topaz” Ltd. (“Company 2”), but failed to have the sale contact certified by a notary.
17.
On 9 April 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 15 October 2007 (see paragraph 15 above) and sent the case for a new examination to the Court of Appeal of the ARK.
The Supreme Court made no ruling on reversal of the execution of the judgment of 15 October 2007.
18.
On 10 November 2008 the Court of Appeal of the ARK upheld the judgment of the Yalta Court of 15 May 2007 (see paragraph 14 above).
19.
On an unspecified date the applicants’ requested the Court of Appeal of the ARK to reverse execution of the judgment of 15 October 2007 (see paragraph 15 above).
Their request was returned to them in April 2009 as lodged with the wrong court.
20.
On 29 January 2009 the applicants lodged the reversal request to the Yalta Court.
This request was not considered until November 2009 (see paragraph 22 below).
In the meantime, Company 2 had sold the Kirova building to the Company “Selbilliar” Ltd. (“Company 3”) (see paragraph 31 below).
21.
On 17 June 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Yalta Court of 15 May 2007 (see paragraph 14 above) and the Court of Appeal of the ARK of 10 November 2008 (see paragraph 18 above).
22.
On 4 November 2009, following the applicants’ claim (see paragraph 20 above), the Yalta Court reversed the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the ARK of 15 October 2007 (see paragraph 15 above) and ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the applicants’ property rights over flat no.
2.
This judgment became final on 12 November 2009.
23.
On 20 January 2010 the Inventory Bureau informed the applicants that it was impossible to enforce the above-mentioned judgment and to register the applicants’ property rights over flat no.
2, as this flat, as well as others in the Kirova building, had been already registered as a property of Company 3 on the basis of the sale contract of the Kirova building of 16 September 2009 (see the third set of proceedings below).
B.
Second set of proceedings 24.
On an unspecified date the applicants instituted administrative proceedings before the Yalta Court in which they challenged the Inventory Bureau’s failure to restore their registration as the owners of flat no.
2.
25.
On 16 February 2010 the Yalta Court found for the applicants and ordered the Inventory Bureau to reinstate the registration of the applicants’ property rights over flat no.
2, on the basis of the private property certificate of 5 October 2004 (see paragraph 6 above).
In doing so, the court noted that the relevant record in the State Register suggested that Company 3 was registered as the owner of the Kirova building but not of flat no.
2, which was a separate object of immovable property belonging to the applicants.
26.
On 22 November 2010 the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
27.
According to the information provided by the applicants on 16 January 2018, this decision had become final but had, at that date, remained unexecuted.
C. Third set of proceedings 28.
On an unspecified date Company 2 instituted court proceedings against Company 1 seeking a declaration that the sale contract of 17 January 2008 (see paragraph 16 above) was valid and the acknowledgment of its property rights over the Kirova building.
The applicants were not involved in the proceedings and, according to them, had not been aware of them until January 2010.
29.
On 21 May 2009 the Commercial Court of the ARK allowed Company’s 2 claim and declared that Company 2 was the owner of the Kirova building.
30.
On 11 September 2009 the Inventory Bureau registered Company 2 as the owner of the Kirova building.
31.
On 16 September 2009 Company 2 sold the Kirova building to Company 3.
32.
On 22 February 2010 the High Commercial Court quashed the decision of 21 May 2009 (see paragraph 29 above) and remitted the case for a new examination.
33.
On 3 March 2010 Company 3 sold the Kirova building to the Company “High tech group” Ltd. (“Company 4”).
34.
On 7 June 2010 the Commercial Court of the ARK terminated the proceedings as both Company 1 and Company 2 had ceased to exist.
D. Fourth set of proceedings 35.
In March 2010 the applicants instituted proceedings against Companies 2, 3 and 4 and the Inventory Bureau seeking: a declaration that the sale contracts of 16 September 2009 (see paragraph 31 above) and 3 March 2010 (see paragraph 33 above) were invalid; the restitution of their flat and of part of the building from the allegedly unlawful possession by Company 4; the confirmation of their property rights over flat no.
2 and their part of the Kirova building, the removal of obstacles to the use of their property; and the award of non-pecuniary damage.
The applicants alleged, inter alia, that pursuant to the valid decision of the Yalta Council of 7 September 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) they, jointly with other individuals, had become the owners of the Kirova building and that the injunctions imposed by the Yalta Court in respect of flat no.
2 (see paragraph 11 above) had been breached by the defendants.
36.
On 14 April 2011 the Yalta Court partly allowed the applicants’ claim.
It found the sale contracts of 16 September 2009 and 3 March 2010 to be invalid and ordered the defendants to pay jointly non-pecuniary damage to the applicants.
On the basis of the extracts from the Property Register, submitted by the Inventory Bureau, the court established that flat no.
2 had been unlawfully included in the sale contracts at issue.
Having noted that the applicants’ property title to flat no.
2 and the Kirova building had been confirmed by the relevant certificates issued by the Yalta Council, which had been valid, and that the applicants were still residing in the Kirova building, the court found no need to reconfirm their property rights and dismissed the reminder of the applicants’ claims.
37.
On 4 July 2011 the Court of Appeal of the ARK quashed this judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim.
The applicants and the public prosecutor appealed in cassation.
38.
On 25 October 2011 the High Specialised Court of Ukraine on Criminal and Civil Matters (“the HCUCCM”) upheld the judgment of 4 July 2011.
39.
On 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment of the HCUCCM of 25 October 2011 on the grounds of inconsistent application of the law and remitted the case for a new examination to the HCUCCM.
40.
On 14 November 2012 the HCUCCM quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the ARK of 4 July 2011 (see paragraph 37 above) and sent the case back to that court for a new examination.
41.
On 6 February 2013, following a request of Company 4, the Court of Appeal of the ARK suspended the proceedings until a final decision was delivered on the claim of Company 4 against the Yalta Council and the Inventory Bureau (see the fifth set of proceedings below).
42.
The applicants appealed against the above-mentioned ruling of 6 February 2013 to the HCUCCM and on 1 March 2013 their appeal was admitted to examination.
43.
No information has been provided to the Court as to further developments in these proceedings.
E. Fifth set of proceedings 44.
On an unspecified date Company 4 instituted proceedings in the Administrative Court of the ARK against the Yalta Council and the Inventory Bureau seeking to declare unlawful and invalid a decision of the Yalta Town Council of 16 January 2004 by which the Kirova sanatorium was transferred to the communal property of Yalta.
It also requested that the Inventory Bureau would refrain from making any change in the registration titles of the Kirova building.
The applicants were involved to the proceedings as a third party supporting the position of the Yalta Council.
45.
On 26 March 2013 the Administrative Court of the ARK partly allowed Company’s 4 claim and invalidated the decision of the Yalta Council of 16 January 2004 as unlawful.
46.
On 30 May 2013, following appeals of the applicants and the Yalta Council, the Sevastopol Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 March 2013 and rejected Company’s 4 claim.
This decision became enforceable from the moment of its delivery but could have been appealed against before the High Administrative Court of Ukraine.
The Court has not been informed whether such an appeal has been lodged.
COMPLAINTS 47.
The applicants complain about the non-enforcement of the final decisions in their favour, the length of the fourth set of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in this respect as well as of a breach of their property rights over flat no.
2 and the Kirova building.
They rely on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention.

Judgment

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SAFONOV AND SAFONOVA v. UKRAINE
(Application no.
24391/10)

JUDGMENT

Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Non-enforcement of final judgments concerning property rights over a flat • Enforcement of a non-pecuniary order possibly requiring more time than pecuniary awards • Non-enforcement for over four years not justified • Art 13 (+ 6 § 1) • Lack of effective remedy for non-enforcement complaint

STRASBOURG
18 June 2020

FINAL

18/09/2020

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Safonov and Safonova v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,Ganna Yudkivska,André Potocki,Lәtif Hüseynov,Lado Chanturia,Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Eduard Yuryevich Safonov and Ms Natalya Olegovna Safonova (“the applicants”), on 19 April 2010;
the decision of 8 October 2018 to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints concerning non-enforcement of the final decisions in their favour, the length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in this respect, as well as of a breach of their property rights over a flat and a building, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 26 May 2020;
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
The present case concerns the applicants’ property dispute with the local authorities and private companies over a flat and a building and the non‐enforcement of final court decisions given in the applicants’ favour.
The applicants invoke Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. THE FACTS
1.
The applicants were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively. They currently live in Moscow. 2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. In June 2001 the applicants instituted proceedings in the Yalta Court against the Yalta Town Council (“the Council”), seeking to declare as “suitable for living” a building (a former dormitory) at 39 “г” Kirova Street in Yalta (“the building”) in which they had been residing since 1982 and which, according to them, was owned by no one. They also invited the court to order the Council to transfer the building to municipal ownership and to issue them with a document permitting them to dwell in it (ордер на квартиру). 5. On 19 September 2001 the court allowed that claim. On 18 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment. 6. On 24 January 2003 the Yalta Town Executive Committee (“the Committee”) gave a decision authorising the applicants to reside in flat no. 2 (“the flat”) in the aforementioned building. 7. On 5 October 2004, in accordance with a decision given by the same Committee, the applicants and their son became the owners of the flat and they were issued with the relevant privatisation certificates. 8. On 6 October 2004 the Yalta Technical Inventory Bureau (“the Inventory Bureau”) registered the applicants’ property rights over the flat. 9. On 7 September 2005 the Council excluded the building from municipal ownership as the flats had been privatised by their residents. It also transferred the building to the joint private ownership of the applicants and of the owners of the building’s other flats. 10. On an unspecified date the Company “Sanatoriy im. Kirova Ltd” (“Company 1”) requested the Yalta Court to reopen the proceedings and review the judgment of 19 September 2001 under newly-discovered circumstances. It claimed to be the owner of the building. 11. On 18 November 2005 the court allowed the request, quashed the judgment of 19 September 2001 and reopened the proceedings. In the course of the proceedings Company 1 submitted a counter-claim seeking to annul the decisions of 24 January 2003 and 7 September 2005, invalidate the applicants’ property certificates over the flat and evict them. 12. On 15 May 2007 the court rejected the applicants’ and Company 1’s claims. It found that the applicants had valid property title to the flat and their claim of June 2001 against the Council was therefore groundless. It further found no evidence to conclude that the building had belonged to Company 1. 13. On 15 October 2007 the ARC Court of Appeal quashed the above-mentioned judgment, rejected the applicants’ claim and partly allowed that of Company 1. It annulled the decisions of 24 January 2003 and 7 September 2005, invalidated the applicants’ documents of title to the flat and ordered the Inventory Bureau to register Company 1 as the owner of the building. Company 1’s claim for the applicants’ eviction was rejected. 14. The applicants appealed on points of law. In the meantime, Company 1 had registered its property rights over the building, and on 17 January 2008 had sold it to the Company “Topaz-K Ltd” (“Company 2”), but had failed to have the sale contract certified by a notary. 15. On 9 April 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 15 October 2007 and sent the case for re-examination to the ARC Court of Appeal, which on 10 November 2008 upheld the judgment of 15 May 2007. 16. On 29 January 2009 the applicants applied to the Yalta Court to reverse execution of the judgment of 15 October 2007. 17. On 17 June 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of 15 May 2007 and 10 November 2008. Shortly thereafter, on 16 September 2009, Company 2 sold the building to the Company “Selbilliar Ltd” (“Company 3”). 18. On 4 November 2009 the Yalta Court reversed the execution of the judgment of 15 October 2007 and ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the applicants’ property rights to the flat. This judgment became final on 12 November 2009, but remained unexecuted. 19. On 20 January 2010 the Inventory Bureau informed the applicants that it was impossible to enforce the above judgment and to register their property rights over the flat, as that flat, as well as others in the building, had already been registered as the property of Company 3 on the basis of the sale contract of 16 September 2009. 20. On an unspecified date the applicants instituted administrative proceedings in the Yalta Court, challenging the Inventory Bureau’s failure to restore their registration as the owners of the flat. 21. On 16 February 2010 the court found for the applicants and ordered the Inventory Bureau to renew the registration of their property rights over the flat. In doing so, the court noted that Company 3 was registered as the owner of the building but not of the flat, which was a separate object of immovable property belonging to the applicants. 22. On 22 November 2010 the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this judgment, which thus became final but remained unexecuted. 23. On an unspecified date Company 2 instituted court proceedings against Company 1, seeking validation of the sale contract of 17 January 2008 (see paragraph 14 above) and the acknowledgment of its property rights over the building. 24. On 21 May 2009 the ARC Commercial Court allowed Company 2’s claim and declared that Company 2 was the owner of the building. 25. On 11 September 2009 the Inventory Bureau registered Company 2 as the owner of the building. 26. On 22 February 2010 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the judgment of 21 May 2009 and referred the case back for re-examination. 27. On 3 March 2010 Company 3, which had bought the building from Company 2 on 16 September 2009, sold it to the Company “High Tech Group Ltd” (“Company 4”). On 2 April 2010 Company 4 registered its title to the building in the State registry. 28. On 7 June 2010 the ARC Commercial Court terminated the proceedings as Companies 1 and 2 had ceased to exist. 29. In March 2010 the applicants lodged a claim with the Yalta Court against Companies 2-4 and the Inventory Bureau, seeking the invalidation of the sale contracts of 16 September 2009 and 3 March 2010 (see paragraphs 17 and 27 above), confirmation of their property rights to the flat, restitution of the building from Company 4 and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They stated that pursuant to the valid decision of 7 September 2005 (see paragraph 9 above), they had owned the building jointly with the other owners of flats in it. They further alleged that the building had been sold together with the flats in it, including their own (see paragraph 27 above). 30. On 14 April 2011 the court partly allowed the claim, invalidated the sale contracts at issue and ordered the defendants to pay non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. It found that the flat had been unlawfully included in those contracts. Having further noted that the applicants’ property title to the flat and the building had been confirmed by the relevant certificates issued by the Council, which had been valid, and that the applicants were still “using” the building, it found no need to reconfirm their property rights and dismissed the remainder of their claims. 31. On 4 July 2011 the ARC Court of Appeal quashed this judgment. It held that since there had been no evidence that the applicants’ property rights to the flat had been breached and they continued living in it, their claim for the protection of the right that had not been breached could not be allowed. In particular, it referred to the judgment of 16 February 2010 (see paragraph 21 above), which established that Company 3 had registered its property title to the building but not to the flat. 32. On 25 October 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (“the HSC”) upheld the judgment of 4 July 2011. 33. On 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 25 October 2011 and referred the case back to the HSC for re-examination. It upheld the lower courts’ findings that the applicants owned their flat, lived in it and did not therefore require its restitution from Company 4. However, their claim also concerned their property rights over the building, which they had jointly owned pursuant to the decision of 7 September 2005, but the lower courts had disregarded that aspect of the claim. 34. On 14 November 2012 the HSC quashed the judgment of 4 July 2011 and sent the case to the ARC Court of Appeal for a new examination. 35. On 6 February 2013, following a request from Company 4, the latter court suspended the proceedings until a final decision was delivered in the fifth set of proceedings (see paragraphs 38-41 below). 36. The applicants appealed against the ruling of 6 February 2013 to the HSC, which on 1 March 2013 opened the cassation proceedings. They did not inform the Court of the outcome of the fourth set of proceedings. 37. With reference to the Law of 15 April 2014 on protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens and legal regime of the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine (“the 2014 Law”), the Government stated that it was for the Kyiv Court of Appeal to determine a court to examine cases normally examined by the courts located on the temporarily occupied territories. However, the applicants had not applied to that court for the resumption of the proceedings after the final decision had been delivered in the fifth set of proceedings (see paragraph 41 below). The Government submitted the above-mentioned court’s letter, which stated that it had not examined the issue of determination of the court in the applicants’ case. 38. On an unspecified date Company 4 instituted court proceedings against the Council and the Inventory Bureau, seeking to declare unlawful and invalid a decision of the Council of 16 January 2004 whereby the property of the Kirova sanatorium to which the building had allegedly belonged was transferred to the communal property of Yalta. It also requested that the Inventory Bureau refrain from making any change in the registration titles of the building. The applicants were involved as third parties in the proceedings. 39. On 26 March 2013 the ARC Administrative Court partly allowed Company 4’s claim and invalidated the decision of 16 January 2004 as unlawful. It also held in the same judgment that the question of the property title to the building was not the subject of examination in this case and that it would not therefore make any legal assessment of that question. 40. On 30 May 2013, following the appeals by the Council and another third party, the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 March 2013 and rejected Company 4’s claim. 41. According to the Government (no copy of the relevant decision was provided), on 2 April 2014 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 30 May 2013 and upheld the judgment of 26 March 2013. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
42.
Article 331 of the Civil Code (2004) provides that property rights to real estate emerge from the moment of their State registration. Section 3 and the final provisions of the State Registration of Real Property Rights Act (2004) further provided at the material time that the State registration of property rights to real estate was carried out by technical inventory bureaus. THE LAW
43.
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure to execute the judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010, which concerned the registration of their property rights to the flat, and the alleged lack of effective remedies in this regard. 44. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
45.
The applicants stated that they maintained their application. 46. The Government submitted that at the material time Company 1 had lawfully obtained its title to the building and had lawfully sold it to Company 2, which had then lawfully sold it to Company 3. Therefore, when the above judgments had become final, the Inventory Bureau had been unable to enforce them. Their enforcement would have led to a breach of the property rights of Companies 3 or 4, depending on the time of enforcement. In the Government’s view, therefore, there had been no breach of Article 6 and the complaint under Article 13 was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. 47. The Court observes at the outset that the main facts, as submitted by the parties, concern the period 2001-2013 and also notes that the applicants have not informed it of any fact or made any specific complaints in relation to further developments. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints are limited to the aforementioned period and finds it unnecessary to examine the question whether Ukraine continued to have jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention with respect to the matters complained of following the events in Crimea in 2014. 48. The Court further notes that the above-mentioned complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. (a) Article 6 § 1
49.
The Court observes that under Ukrainian law, as applicable at the material time, the State registration of property rights to real estate with the inventory bureaus was a constitutive element for the emergence of such rights (see paragraph 42 above). Therefore, the proceedings leading to the final and enforceable judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010, which ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the applicants’ property rights over the flat, concerned the applicants’ civil rights. Article 6 was therefore applicable. 50. The Court reiterates that according to its extensive case-law the execution of a judgment given by a court must be regarded as an integral part of a “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 (see, among many other authorities, Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II) and that an unreasonably long delay on the part of the domestic authorities in enforcing a judgment given against them constitutes, as a general rule, a breach of that provision (see, among many other authorities, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 53-54, 15 October 2009). 51. The Court further notes that in the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine ((striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 and others, § 215, 12 October 2017 (extracts)) it struck a category of non-enforcement cases against Ukraine out of its list of cases and transmitted them for processing to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Those cases concerned pecuniary debts which remained unenforced due to a number of factors disclosing structural problems persisting in Ukraine (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 84). However, unlike those cases, the present case concerns the non-enforcement by a State body of judgments ordering it to undertake administrative registrations, that is not related to the above systemic problems and thus requires a continued examination. The Court is mindful of the fact that the enforcement of judgments which incorporate rulings of a non-pecuniary nature may sometimes take more time than is the case for the payment of money awarded under a court judgment (see, for instance, Tonyuk v. Ukraine, no. 6948/07, §§ 38 and 40, 1 June 2017, and the references therein). However, in the present case it does not find any fact or argument that would justify the failure to enforce the final judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010 for a period of over four years (until the last relevant events communicated to the Court by the parties). 52. As regards the Government’s arguments that the enforcement of the judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010 would have led to a breach of the property rights of Companies 3 or 4, the Court rejects them for the following reasons. It notes that on 20 January 2010 (see paragraph 19 above) the Inventory Bureau informed the applicants that it could not enforce the judgment of 4 November 2009 and register their property rights over the flat because it had already been registered as the property of Company 3. However, in the subsequent final judgment of 16 February 2010 the Yalta Court repeatedly ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the applicants’ property rights over the flat. It stated that Company 3 was registered as the owner of the building but not of the flat, which was a separate object of immovable property and belonged to the applicants (see paragraph 21 above). Lastly, the case file does not contain any document from the Inventory Bureau informing the applicants that it had been unable to enforce the judgments at issue owing to the alleged breach of Company 4’s rights. Nor does it contain any valid court decision confirming Company 4’s title to the flat. On the contrary, on 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ findings that the applicants – and not Company 4 – owned their flat (see paragraph 33 above). The Court thus fails to see how the enforcement of the judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010 would have breached the rights of Company 4. 53. In view of the above considerations and having regard to its case-law on the matter (see paragraph 50 above), the Court concludes that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgments at issue. (b) Article 13
54.
The Court first notes that it found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010 (see paragraphs 49-53 above). The applicants’ complaint under Article 13 raised in this respect is therefore “arguable” for the purposes of the Convention and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 55. It further notes that neither its well-established case law (see, among many other authorities, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 48, 29 June 2004; Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plyus v. Ukraine, no. 20988/02, § 89, 9 December 2010; and Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, 1 September 2016) nor any fact or argument suggest that the applicants had any effective remedies for their non-enforcement complaints. The Court thus concludes that the applicants did not have such remedies, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 56. The applicants also complained of violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the length of the fourth set of proceedings, the alleged lack of effective remedies in that regard and the alleged general breach of their property rights. 57. The Court considers that the main issue at the heart of the applicants’ complaint, specifically the non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 November 2009 and 16 February 2010 and the lack of effective remedies in this respect (see paragraphs 49-55 above), have been examined by the Court and that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the allegations mentioned in the preceding paragraph (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references). 58. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
59.
The applicants claimed 46,426 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 60. The Government contested that claim. 61. The Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damage for the non‐enforcement of the final judgments in their favour and the lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard. 62. The applicants made no claim under this head. 63. Accordingly, there is no call for an award in this respect. 64. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, unanimously,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6.Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Victor Soloveytchik Síofra O’LearyDeputy RegistrarPresident