Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33747/07
Olga Vladimirovna SHTURMINA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olga Vladimirovna Shturmina, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Donetsk.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In June 2006 the applicant and Mr Sh. divorced. She then brought an action against her former husband before the Donetsk Kalininskiy District Court (the District Court) seeking payment of maintenance for their two minor daughters. She claimed, inter alia, that under the Constitution and the Family Code the spouses were equal in their family rights and obligations and therefore she asked to award her for each child the fixed amount which corresponded to half of the minimum living standard foreseen by the 2006 State Budget Act, which totalled in 536 hryvnias (UAH) at the material time. She further noted that her claim was in line with Article 14 of the Convention which prohibited any form of discrimination.
On 19 October 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim only in part. It noted that the fixed amount could be awarded if the maintenance payer did not have a permanent income. Since Mr Sh. had a permanent income, the court refused to award the applicant the requested fixed amount of maintenance. The court noted that the applicant earned UAH 1,463.42 per month and her former husband had monthly income of UAH 850.33. It took into account the health and economic situation of children and the ability of Mr Sh. to pay the maintenance and, therefore, ordered Mr Sh. to pay one third of his income (around UAH 255) to the applicant for maintenance of their children as from 13 June 2006, the date of the court’s receipt of the applicant’s claim.
On 6 December 2006 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, upon the applicant’s appeal, changed in part the judgment of 19 October 2006, specifying that Mr Sh. had to pay one third of his income, but not less than 30 percent of the minimum living standard foreseen for the children of the particular age group (UAH 283 at the material time). It also changed, as requested by the applicant, the date from which the maintenance was to be paid from 13 to 7 June 2006, the latter being the date on which the applicant had sent her claim to the first-instance court.
The applicant appealed in cassation reiterating her earlier submissions. She also complained that the lower courts had failed to examine her argument that the awarded amount was in breach to the principle of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. In this respect she also referred to the case Pronina v. Ukraine (no. 63566/00, 18 July 2006).
On 1 July 2007 the Supreme Court rejected her cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Constitution
Article 24
“Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law.
...
Equality of the rights of women and men is ensured: by providing women with opportunities equal to those of men, in public and political, and cultural activity, in obtaining education and in professional training, in work and its remuneration; by special measures for the protection of work and health of women; by establishing pension privileges, by creating conditions that allow women to combine work and motherhood; by legal protection, material and moral support of motherhood and childhood, including the provision of paid leaves and other privileges to pregnant women and mothers.”
Article 51
“Marriage is based on the free consent of a woman and a man. Each of the spouses has equal rights and duties in the marriage and family.
Parents are obliged to support their children until they attain the age of majority...”
2. Family Code
Article 7
General principles of regulation of family relations
“5. Participant of family relations may not have privileges or restrictions based on ... his or her material status ...
6. A woman and a man have equal rights and responsibilities in family relations, marriage and family.”
Article 182
Circumstances to be taken into account by the court when determining the amount of child maintenance
“1. When determining the amount of maintenance the court shall take into account:
1) the state of health and financial situation of the child;
2) the state of health and financial situation of the maintenance payer;
3) whether the maintenance payer has other children, or a disabled husband, wife, parent, daughter, or son;
4) other significant circumstances.
2. The amount of maintenance for one child should not be less than 30 percent of the minimum living standard foreseen for children of the particular age group, except for the cases provided for in Article 184 of the Code.”
Article 183
Determining the amount of maintenance as a share of earnings (income) of the mother or father of the child
“1. The share of earnings (income) of the mother or the father, to be paid as maintenance shall be determined by the court.
2. If maintenance is to be paid for two or more children, the court shall determine a single share of earnings (income) of the mother or the father for their maintenance...”
Article 184
Determining maintenance as a fixed amount
“1. If the maintenance payer has occasional, varying income, receives a part of income in kind, as well as in other significant circumstances, the court, at the request of the payer or the recipient, can determine the maintenance in a fixed amount.
2. Maintenance determined by the court as a fixed amount shall be subject to indexation in accordance with the law.
3. If maintenance determined by the court as a fixed amount is less than the minimum prescribed by second paragraph of Article 182 of the Code, the child shall be accorded State support in accordance with law in the amount which covers the difference between the amount of maintenance and 30 percent of the minimum living standard foreseen for children of the particular age group.”
3. The 2006 State Budget Act
Article 65
“To approve for the year 2006 the following the minimum living standard (прожитковий мінімум) per person per month ...
For children aged 6 to 18 years: from 1 January - UAH 514, from 1 April - UAH 527, from 1 October - UAH 536
Amounts of State social guarantees for 2006 which are calculated on the basis of the minimum living standard shall be determined by relevant laws, this Act and the normative legal acts of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to address the issue of equality of parents in their obligation to support minor children, although she raised this issue referring to the pertinent provisions of the Constitution and other legal acts.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had not decided her case fairly and had failed to answer her argument that the awarded amount of the child maintenance violated the principle of equality enshrined in the Family Code and the Constitution. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
According to Article 19 of the Convention, the Court’s duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 45, 15 December 2005).
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is, moreover, necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and drafting of judgments. That is why the question whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 of the Convention, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303‑A, § 29).
The Court notes that in the instant case the domestic courts rejected the applicant’s claim for being unsubstantiated. In their decisions, they observed that in her claim, the applicant requested that the child support maintenance be awarded in the fixed amount, which under the relevant provisions of the domestic law could be awarded if the defendant had no permanent income. Having found that the applicant’s former husband had a permanent income, the domestic courts decided that the applicant’s claim in this part could not be allowed. They further examined the financial situation of the parties and the situation of the children in defining the amount of child maintenance payments from the applicant’s ex-husband. In the Court’s view, the domestic courts, having found that the applicant’s claim could not be derived from the legal provisions invoked by her, were not obliged to make detailed analysis of the arguments advanced by the applicant in support of her claim. The Court considers that the reasons given by the domestic courts for rejecting the applicant’s claim were sufficiently clear and the lack of a detailed answer to each of the applicant’s arguments was justified in the circumstances of the case. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains about a violation of Article 14 of the Convention which read as follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The Court, referring to its constant case-law (see, among other authorities, Gaygusuz v. Austria, § 36, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, ECHR 2008‑... and references therein), notes that the applicant’s submissions are not related to the above Article 6 complaint, but concern her claims in the domestic civil proceedings and do not fall “within the ambit” of any other Convention Article. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy Registrar President