Суббота, 15.05.2021, 02:30
Приветствую Вас Гость | RSS
Меню сайта
Форма входа
«  Май 2021  »
Архив записей
Наш опрос
Оцените мой сайт
Всего ответов: 27

Онлайн всего: 1
Гостей: 1
Пользователей: 0

Благотворительный фонд "Ющенко Крым"

Решение Европейского Суда от 15.07.2010г., Ющенко и другие против Украины",73990/01, 7364/02, 15185/



In the case of Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,

Renate Jaeger,

Karel Jungwiert,

Mark Villiger,

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,

Zdravka Kalaydjieva,

Ganna Yudkivska, judges?

and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 June 2010,


1.   The case originated in four applications (nos. 73990/01, 7364/02, 15185/02 and 11117/05) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by three Ukrainian nationals, Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko ("the first applicant"), Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Yushchenko ("the second applicant") and Mr Pavel Vladimirovich Yushchenko ("the third applicant") and a private transport enterprise, YUVM-Avtoservis (77/7 «K>BM-Aemocepeic») ("the applicant company"). Application no. 73990/01 was lodged on 28 September 2000 by all applicants. Application no. 7364/02 was lodged on 10 May 2001 by the third applicant. Application no. 15185/02 was lodged on 4 April 2002 by the first applicant and application no. 11117/05 was lodged on 13 March 2005 by the second applicant.

2.   The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

3.   On 27 March 2007 the Court declared the applications partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the complaints of the first applicant under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the civil claim against him had been allowed although there was already a final decision on this claim; that the length of proceedings in the fraud and libel criminal cases against him had been excessive; his claim for compensation for damage caused by the search of his apartment in May 1998 in his civil case; and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property rights had been violated during the enforcement of the judgment of 18 February 1999 against him; and the complaints of the third applicant under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the presumption of innocence had been



violated and that the proceedings in a criminal case against him had been excessively long. It also decided to join the applications (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court) and to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (Article 29 § 3).



4.   The individual applicants were born in 1934, 1967 and 1976
respectively and live in Yevpatoriya, Ukraine.


                 А. Civil proceedings on the return of a photocopier,

nos. 2-428/1999 Yevpatoriya

5.   In August 1998 L. instituted proceedings against the first applicant in the Yevpatoriya Town Court requesting the return of a photocopier, forty packets of paper and twelve toner cartridges. He alleged that in May 1998 the first applicant, together with the third applicant, had come to the office of L. and asked Z., the secretary of L., to lend him a photocopier. At the material time L. was in pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him. Z., knowing that there were friendly relations between L. and the first applicant, had allowed him to take the photocopier and other materials. Later L. also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

6.   On 6 November 1998 the court found for L. and ordered the first applicant to return the photocopier and related materials to L. or to pay him 6,446.92 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in pecuniary damages. In the text of the judgment the court also mentioned that the first applicant was to pay UAH 6,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but made no reference to this sum in the operative part of the judgment. On the same date the court also adopted an interim decision by which it froze the accounts of the applicant company and banned any transactions with the first applicant's property and apartment over UAH 12,446.92.

7.   On 4 January 1999 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ("the ARC") quashed the judgment of 6 November 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court however upheld the decision of 6 November 1998 concerning the interim measures.

8.   On 18 February 1999 the Yevpatoriya Town Court found for L. and ordered the first applicant to return the photocopier to L. or to pay him its value of UAH 5,480. The court also ordered the first applicant to pay UAH 274 in court fees. The remainder of L.'s claims were rejected as