PETLYOVANYY v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible
Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger
The applicant, Mr Petro Yakovych Petlyovanyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kolodribka. He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Petrunko, a lawyer practising in Chernivtsi. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then acting Agent, Mr M. Bem, from the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In December 2006 the applicant made a deposit with a private entity, the Sidney Plus Credit Union (“the Credit Union”), and was subsequently unable to receive his money back. On 20 April 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against officials of the above entity for financial fraud and the applicant was recognised in June 2007 as an aggrieved party in those proceedings, being entitled to claim an amount of UAH 55,476.99 (equivalent to EUR 9,124.60). On 5 May 2008 the Ternopil Regional Commercial Court declared the Credit Union bankrupt. The founder of the Credit Union, Ms L., was placed on the list of wanted persons. In February 2008 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zalishchytskyy District Court against the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury, seeking to recover the losses sustained as a result of the crime under Article 1177 of the Civil Code. By decision of 25 March 2008 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 Article 1177 of the Civil Code had not yet been enacted. Furthermore, the court noted that the identity of the person who caused the damage to the applicant had been established but that her whereabouts were unknown, and that the insolvency of the accused person had not been established. On 22 May and 23 July 2008 respectively the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court 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. Article 1177 provides 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.”