CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 octobre 2007

.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 } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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. 44884/05 by Oksana Tymofiyivna TATSINETS against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges, and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2005, 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Oksana Tymofiyivna Tatsinets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the village of Staryi Lysets, Ivano-Frankivsk Region, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a school teacher in the village of Staryi Lysets. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Tysmenytsky District Court of Ivano-Frankivsk against her employer, the Department of Education of the Tysmenytsky District State Administration, seeking reimbursement for the housing charges she paid [1] . By judgments of 17 June 1999 and 11 August 2000 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a total of UAH 2,394.98 [2] . The Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings on 30 June 1999 and 1 September 2000 respectively. As the judgments remained unenforced, on 11 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Tysmenytsky District Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, challenging their omission. On 11 December 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint for her failure to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed by law. By letters of 31 January 2002, 5 October 2004 and 26 August 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments given in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds. The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments of the Tysmenytsky District Court of Ivano-Frankivsk of 17 June 1999 and 11 August 2000. She further complained that the above non-enforcement had been in violation of Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention. THE LAW On 21 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant: I, Oksana Tymofiyivna TATSINETS, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay the judgments debt still owed to me, as well as to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR   2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros) 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 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros) 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 judgment 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.   On 7 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: I, Yuriy ZAYTSEV, Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay the judgments debt still owed to Mrs   Oksana Tymofiyivna Tatsinets, as well as to pay her ex gratia the sum of EUR   2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros) 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 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros) 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 judgment 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] According to the domestic legislation the State provides rural teachers with free accommodation, including heating and electricity supply. [2] At the material time around 566 euros (“EUR”).