AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 18389/03
by Vladimir Antonovich MIKHAYLENKO
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr R. Maruste,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Antonovich Mikhaylenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Simferopil.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 March 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kyivskiy District Court of Simferopil (the “District Court;” Київський районний суд м. Сімферополя) against his former employer, the private company “Grig” (the “Company;” підприємство „Гріг”) for a breach of contract entitling him to a share of the employer’s profits in return for his dedicated labour.
On 16 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, having found that the contract in question was null and void.
On 6 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Crimea (the “Court of the Crimea;” Верховний суд Автономної Республіки Крим)1 quashed the judgment of 16 September 1999 on appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It instructed the District Court to analyse the applicable facts and law more thoroughly.
On 18 May 2000 the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s claims, having found that the contract in question was null and void.
On 14 June 2000 the Court of the Crimea quashed the decision of 18 May 2000 on appeal in cassation. It found that the District Court had failed to comply with its instructions to analyse the applicable facts and law thoroughly.
On 5 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, having confirmed its prior finding that the contract in issue was null and void.
On 16 January 2002 the Court of the Crimea upheld the judgment of 5 November 2001 on appeal.
On 27 December 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
The applicant complains, in substance, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about unreasonable length of the proceedings in his case and their unfair outcome.
1. The applicant complains, in substance, that the length of the civil proceedings in his dispute with his former employer was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair an public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complains, in substance, under the same Article, about an unfair outcome of the proceedings in his case.
In this regard, the Court observes that it is not called upon to examine the alleged errors of facts and law committed by the domestic judicial authorities, insofar as no unfairness of the proceedings can be detected and the decisions reached cannot be considered arbitrary. On the basis of the materials in the Court’s possession, it is noted that the applicant enjoyed the right to adversarial proceedings with the participation of interested parties. Within the framework of the proceedings, the applicant introduced all necessary arguments defending his interests and the final decisions taken by the domestic courts bear no signs of manifest arbitrariness.
The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
MIKHAYLENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION
MIKHAYLENKO v. UKRAINE DECISION