CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2571CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s28AF21C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s31EEE7E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150% } .s4A7B20EA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3276/04 by Volodymyr Vasylyovych REDKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Vasylyovych Redko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1948 and resides in the town of Chervonograd, Lviv region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mr Y. Zaytsev, and Mrs I. Shevchuk, Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonogradskiy Local Court of the Lviv Region against his employer, the “Zarichna” State mine ( ДВАТ шахта „Зарічна” ), for different payments allegedly due to him. On 1 October 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 14,011.79 [1] (Рішення Червоноградського місцевого суду Львівської області). In November 2001 the Chervonogradskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Червоноградського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. In 2002-2003 the judgment was enforced in part. In February 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonogradskiy Local Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. In his letter to the Court of 30 May 2005 the applicant stated that the judge had proposed that he withdraw his complaint “because his case was pending before the European Court”. On 26 March 2004 the applicant withdrew his complaint and his case was closed. By letter of 4 November 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the rest of the amount awarded to him could be transferred to the applicant’s account only upon the applicant’s written request. Without specifying why he cannot submit such a request, the applicant states that there are other ways of enforcing the judgment in his favour, for example, by issuing him with a cheque. The Government informed the Court that by 17 May 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained in substance under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He also referred to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 15 of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930. THE LAW On 29 March 2006 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant:   “ I, Mr Volodymyr Vasylyovych REDKO, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR   1,800 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.   The sum of EUR 1,800 will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the [decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1] of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.   This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.” On 21 February 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “ I, Iryna SHEVCHUK, Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay Mr Volodymyr Vasylyovych Redko ex gratia the sum of EUR   1,800 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.   The sum of EUR 1,800 will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the [decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1] of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 §   1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President     [1] At the material time EUR 2,886.28