ZOLOTYUK v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible
Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
The applicant, Mr Yaroslav Mykhaylovych Zolotyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Zhytomyr. On 29 December 2002 Mr K. caused a traffic accident and his car collided with the applicant’s car. The applicant sustained bodily injuries of medium gravity as a result. On 17 December 2003 the Zhytomyr District Court of the Zhytomyr region absolved Mr K., who had admitted his guilt, under the Amnesty Act. By a judgment of 15 April 2005, the Korolyovskyy District Court of the city of Zhytomyr awarded the applicant 20,668.44 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) against Mr K. in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident mentioned above. The bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings for the lack of property of Mr K. which could be attached. The applicant did not challenge termination of the enforcement proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. for the latter’s failure to pay the judgment debt. He also complained about the nonenforcement to the prosecutor and then challenged the alleged inaction of the prosecutor before the courts. In March 2010 the applicant lodged a claim with the Korolyovskyy District Court against the Cabinet of Ministers, seeking compensation for the damage caused by Mr K. under Articles 1177 and 1207 of the Civil Code. By the judgment of 1 March 2012, the court rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that a special law laying down the conditions and mechanism for enforcing the provisions of Articles 1177 and 1207 of the Civil Code had not yet been enacted. Furthermore, the court noted that the insolvency of Mr K. had not been established. On 13 June and 20 July 2012 respectively the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The Civil Code, which came into force in 2004, lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage. Among others, two articles, namely Article 1177, relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings, and Article 1207, provide for the State to compensate the victims of a crime if the offender is not identified or is insolvent. The articles in question provide as follows: “1. Pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person as the result of a crime shall be compensated for by the State if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent. 2. The conditions and procedure governing compensation for pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person who was the victim of a crime shall be established by law.” “1. Damage caused by mutilation, other physical injury or death as the result of a crime shall be the subject of State compensation to the victim or to other persons defined in Article 1200 of this Code if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent. 2. The conditions and procedure governing State compensation for the damage caused by mutilation, other physical injury or death shall be established by law.”