Execution of court decisions in terms of the right to a fair trial

Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна


The article addresses the Ukrainian model of executive proceedings (which was recently updated as a result of constitutional reform in the justice sector) through the prism of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Art. 6 ECHR. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the evaluative interpretation of this guarantee in case-law of the ECtHR, according to which an execution of court decisions is considered also as an element of other conventional rights, namely: a right to an effective remedy (Art. 13), a right to respect for private and family life (art. 8) and a right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (Art. 1 of 1st Additional Protocol to the ECHR).

The author analyzes the pilot judgement of ECtHR «Yuriy Nikolaevich Ivanov v. Ukraine» and the judgement «Burmych v. Ukraine», in which the ECtHR diagnosed a systemic problem of non-enforcement of court decisions where the debtor is the State or state-owned enterprises. This problem at national level is caused by a variety of dysfunctions in the Ukrainian legal system, in particular, the lack of budgetary allocations, the bailiffs’ omissions and the shortcomings in the national legislation, authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary measures, the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies

The article advocates a position according to which the national legislation of Ukraine needs further changes to ensure fulfillment of its international obligations. In particular, it is necessary to provide at national level an effective remedy of the right to a fair trial and execution of court decisions within a reasonable time in accordance with the requirements of Art. 13 ECHR.


right to a fair trial, execution of court decisions, enforcement proceedings, reasonable time of a trial, effective remedies


«Akashev v. Russia», no. 30616/05, 12 June 2008, HUDOC, URL:

«Apostol v. Georgia», no. 40765/02, 28 November 2006, HUDOC, URL:

«Burdov v. Russia», no. 59498/00, 7 May 2002, HUDOC, URL:

«Burdov v. Russia» (no. 2), no. 33509/04, HUDOC, URL:

«Burmych v. Ukraine» [GC], no., 46852/13 and others, 12 October 2017, HUDOC, URL:

«Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal» [GC], no. 35382/97, 6 July 2000, HUDOC, URL:

«Estima Jorge v. Portugal», no. 24550/94, 21 April 1998, HUDOC, URL:

«Fuklev v. Ukraine», no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005, HUDOC, URL:

«Garcia Mateos v. Spain», no. 38285/09, 19 February 2013, HUDOC, URL:

«Hornsby v. Greece», no. 18357/91, 25 February 1997, HUDOC, URL:

«Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy», no. 22774/93, 28 July 1999, HUDOC, URL:

«Jasiuniene v. Lithuania», no. 41510/98, 06 March 2003, HUDOC, URL:

«Kudla v. Poland», no. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, HUDOC, URL:

«Marinković v. Serbia», no. 5353/11, 22 October 2013, HUDOC, URL:

«Nuutinen v. Finland», no. 32842/96, 27 June 2000, HUDOC, URL:

Overview 1959-2016 ECHR (Council of Europe, 2017), Cite of European Court of Human Rights, URL:

Pending applications allocated to a judicial formation, 30 November 2017, Cite of European Court of Human Rights, URL:

«Stadnyuk v. Ukraine», no. 30922/05, 12 November 2008, HUDOC, URL:

«Sylvester v. Austria», no. 36812/97, 40104/98, 24 April 2003, HUDOC, URL:

The ECHR in Facts and Figures 2016 (Council of Europe, 2017), Cite of European Court of Human Rights, URL:

«Yuriy Nikolaevich Ivanov v. Ukraine», no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009, HUDOC, URL:

GOST Style Citations

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2018 Тетяна Андріївна Цувіна

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281