FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27234/04
by Tamara Sergeyevna BRATCHENKO
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tamara Sergeyevna Bratchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Shchyolkino, Ukraine.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Proceedings against Mr B. and Mr S.
In the period from September till December 1989 the applicant's apartment was used by the friends of her son, Mr B. and Mr S, who moved in without her permission and allegedly damaged it.
On 15 January 1990 she instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Leninsky Court”) against Mr B. and Mr S. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Kerch Court. On 5 November 1998 the court partly allowed her claims. On 6 March 2002 the Kerch Court, following Mr B.'s request, renewed a deadline for appealing against the judgment. On 10 April 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the court of appeal”) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a new consideration to the first-instance court. On 30 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation against the ruling of the court of appeal. On 12 December 2002 the Kerch Court partly allowed the applicant's claims. The judgment was not enforced due to a lack of funds.
2.  Proceedings against a local police office
According to the applicant's submissions, in 1997 she instituted proceedings against the Leninsky District Police Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea challenging its actions in investigating the criminal case against Mr R. She also claimed compensation. On 6 April 2004 the court partly allowed her claims. The applicant appealed. On 10 June 2004 the Leninsky Court declared her appeal inadmissible since she failed to comply with procedural formalities.
3.  Other proceedings
(a) Criminal proceedings against Mr R.
On 12 December 2003 the Kerch Court convicted Mr R. for inflicting light bodily harm on the applicant and sentenced him to 3 years' suspended imprisonment. On 1 July 2004 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings following the applicant's request since the applicant failed to comply with procedural formalities.
(b) Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 7 December 1995 the applicant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for violation of currency legislation. The applicant provided no further information concerning appeals against this judgment.
(c) Proceedings against a local bailiffs' service, post office, office of the State Pension Fund, the Kerch Court
The applicant instituted a number of other proceedings against local bailiffs' service, post office, office of the State Pension Fund, the Kerch Court (for details see the Annex). Her claims were left without consideration since she failed to comply with procedural formalities prescribed by Ukrainian law.
She also unsuccessfully tried to institute criminal proceedings against Mr S and Mr B.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the unfairness and unreasonable length of the proceedings.
Relying on Article 8 § 1 of the Convention she complained that the local post office had handed her letter to another person and that she had received two letters from the domestic courts in opened envelopes.
She complained under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her apartment had been unlawfully occupied by Mr B. and Mr S.
The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in her favour against Mr B. and Mr S.
She further complained under Article 5 of the Convention that she had been unlawfully detained during an unspecified period of time.
The applicant finally alleged that she had been subjected to terror by the Ukrainian police, the prosecutor's service and the domestic courts.
THE LAW
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in her cases against the local police office and against Mr B. and Mr S.
She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides so far as relevant as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints 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 Court, having examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints, considers that, in the light of all the materials in its possession and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn examination of the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 concerning the excessive length of the proceedings in her case against the local police office and in her case against Mr B. and Mr S;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek	Rait Maruste
	Registrar	President

Annex

No.	Proceedings instituted on	Claim/complaint and defendant 	Court of first-instance	Appeals against the ruling of the 1st instance court 	
1.	7 October 2003	The applicant challenged the actions of the Bailiffs' Service and the local post office 	On 25/11/2004 the Leninsky Court declined to examine the applicant's complaint since she had failed to comply with procedural formalities. 	On 30 March 2005 the Leninsky Court declared her appeal inadmissible since she had failed to comply with procedural formalities. 	
2.	January 2005	The applicant challenged the actions of the Leninsky District Office of the State Pension Fund 	On 28/01/2005 (complaint) and 9/03/2005 (claim), the Leninsky Court declined to examine the applicant's complaint and claim since she failed to comply with procedural formalities.	 	
3.	28 April 2004 	The applicant challenged the inactivity of the Bailiffs' Service. 	On 16/09/2004 the Leninsky Court declined to examine the applicant's claim since she had failed to comply with procedural formalities.

	29 November 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.

The applicant appealed in cassation. On 10 January 2005 the Leninsky Court considered the admissibility of her appeal in cassation and gave her a time limit in which to rectify the shortcomings.	
4.	8 September 2003	The applicant challenged the allegedly unlawful actions of the Bailiffs' Service 	On 19 March 2004 the Leninsky Cour gave its decision (the applicant did not provide a copy of this decision). 	On 31 May 2004 the applicant's appeal was left without consideration due to its procedural shortcomings. 	
5. 	2004	The applicant complained about the unlawful actions of the Kerch Court 	On 14/06/2004, the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea refused to consider the applicant's complaint due to lack of jurisdiction.