CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 décembre 2010

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9FE6B50C { width:200.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7779956E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sB2174389 { width:128.04%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8BE0B138 { height:101.25pt } .s5F34A150 { width:9.4%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC8284785 { width:11.76%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4E64703 { width:21.46%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s955647F3 { width:15.66%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s8A4838DE { width:26.44%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9D02B3E9 { width:15.28%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s689AE8B1 { height:49.7pt } .s5B486877 { width:9.4%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2071F728 { width:11.76%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2D0CEB30 { width:21.46%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s9F01198A { width:15.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s15573467 { width:26.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC73A57F6 { width:15.28%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s4E6E6575 { height:38.25pt } .s29896D70 { height:42.55pt } .s1F982F38 { height:34pt } .s29BA263B { height:22.5pt } .sCC7C249F { height:121.2pt } .sBC5AE884 { height:80.45pt } .sCB29AD19 { width:9.4%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sF51D76 { width:11.76%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC3C9A593 { width:21.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sCC164B4 { width:15.66%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s59792FEE { width:26.44%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC8A4F846 { width:15.28%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14570/07 by Nikolay Ivanovich KOLOSAY and 31 other applications against Ukraine (see annex for other applications) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14   December 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Rait Maruste, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates specified in the table annexed below, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts)), Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, the applicants’ replies to it and the Government’s letter of 9   December 2010 amending the aforesaid declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the table annexed below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Yuriy Zaytsev , of the Ministry of Justice. On the dates set out in the table annexed below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay various amounts to the applicants. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. THE LAW The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine pilot judgment cited above, in a letter dated 13 September 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments. The Government are ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding debts according to the judgements of the national authorities, as well as to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums in accordance with annex no. 1 to this declaration. The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sums ex gratia are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them 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. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.” In reply, the applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the Government’s declaration. The majority of the applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government would comply with the terms of the unilateral declaration. On 9 December 2010 the Government sent a letter expressing their intent to amend the above declaration and to include the provision that the ex gratia sums “be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement” in order to be able to effect the payment. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 in fine states: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.” The Court further reiterates that in its pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above) it required Ukraine to “grant adequate and sufficient redress, within one year from the date on which the present judgment [became] final, to all applicants [...] whose complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions [had] been communicated to the respondent Government.” In the same judgment the Court also held that “Proceedings in cases which [had] already been communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, but in which the Court [had] not yet decided on the merits, [would] be adjourned for [one year from the date on which this judgment became final]. ... The decision to adjourn the above cases [would] be taken without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles   37 or 39 of the Convention.” In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that both Article 37 § 1 (b) and Article   37   §   1 (c) are relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This, in its view, is in line with the pilot judgment (ibid., §   99 and point 6 of the operative part) and it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour, the applicants’ comments thereon and the amendment to the aforesaid declaration; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention. Stephen Phillips   Rait Maruste Deputy Registrar   President ANNEX   No. Appl. Number Name(s) of the applicant(s), born in Date of introduction Domestic decisions about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (name of the court or of another authority, date of the decision) Compensation offered (euro) 1 14570/07 KOLOSAY NIKOLAY IVANOVICH 1940 15/03/2007 1) 29.10.2004, Nova Kakhovka Court 2) 15.08.2003, Nova Kakhovka Court, 1,050 2 23636/08 KOMISARYK MARIYA IVANIVNA 1929 14/05/2008 06.02.2007, Zhmerinka Court 630 3 7380/09 PRYSHCHEPA LYUBOV VOLODYMYRIVNA 1948 28/01/2009 03.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 4 7428/09 POLISHCHUK IVAN PROPOKOVYCH 1942 28/01/2009 04.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 5 7433/09 FRANCHUK IVAN IVANOVYCH 1946 28/01/2009 26.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 6 7435/09 BORYSYUK ANATOLIY ROMANOVYCH 1937 29/01/2009 12.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 7 7468/09 MAZURASH OLEKSANDR MYKOLAYOVYCH 1960 29/01/2009 18.02.2008, Tetiyiv Court 450 8 8836/09 ABLAMSKA KATERYNA YURIYIVNA 1950 04/02/2009 29.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 9 9814/09 SHAMRAY VOLODYMYR VASYLYOVYCH 1934 02/02/2009 28.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 10 9817/09 BANDURYST LEONID PETROVYCH 1963 02/02/2009 10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 11 9823/09 NEKUSH OLEKSANDR PAVLOVYCH 1955 02/02/2009 12.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 12 10277/09 VIZNYAK LYUDMYLA VOLODYMYRIVNA 1957 09/02/2009 19.02.2008, Tetiyiv Court 450 13 10281/09 MAZURENKO VALENTYNA DMYTRIVNA 1953 10/02/2009 10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 14 12611/09 OVCHINNIKOV YURIY MYKOLAYOVYCH 1957 24/02/2009 29.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 15 12653/09 POPRUGA YURIY MYKOLAYOVYCH 1964 20/02/2009 06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 16 13002/09 KOBYLETSKA VALENTYNA STANISLAVIVNA 1935 25/02/2009 21.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 17 14285/09 STEPANYUK ANATOLIY GRYGOROVYCH 1959 03/03/2009 30.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 18 16615/09 SHOSTOPAL VOLODYMYR STEPANOVYCH 1939 17/03/2009 06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 19 17941/09 SUKHATSKA NADIYA MYKOLAYIVNA 1950 17/03/2009 26.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 20 21292/09 KHIRSA ARKADIY GRYGOROVYCH 1966 30/03/2009 16.12.2002, Korosten Court 1,395 21 33618/09 MUDRENOK YEVGENIY DMYTROVYCH 1956 12/06/2009 04.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 22 33660/09 MELNYK VASYL FEDOROVYCH 1939 08/06/2009 16.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 23 36872/09 KAMINSKYY VOLODYMYR MYKOLAYOVYCH 1949 25/06/2009 11.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 24 38451/09 POVSTYANKO VOLODYMYR MYKOLAYOVYCH 1953 30/06/2009 1.) 13.09.2007, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 07.10.2008 2.) 15.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court, amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 20.01.2009 3.) 19.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 06.11.2008 345 25 44406/09 TESLENKO VALERIY TYMOFIYOVYCH 1948 03/08/2009 1.) 01.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 04.12.2008 2.) 28.05.2008, Oleksandriyskyy Town District Court of Kirovograd Region 390 26 46267/09 ARKHYPOV SERGIY MYKOLAYOVYCH 1961 18/08/2009 19.05.2008, Tetiyiv Court 405 27 48995/09 SKHAB VOLODYMYR VASYLYOVYCH 1942 26/08/2009 28.05.2008, Tetiyiv Court 405 28 48999/09 KOSTENKO NINA IVANIVNA 1940 27/08/2009 21.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 29 51351/09 CHOPYK OLEKSANDR MYKHAYLOVYCH 1956 10/09/2009 10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 30 52705/09 SHANDURSKYY PETRO ANTONOVYCH 1943 22/09/2009 06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480 31 54561/09 ALEKSYEYEVA MARIYA OLEKSIYIVNA 1945 01/10/2009 28.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court 495 32 55344/09 KRYUKOV VALERIY MYKOLAYOVYCH 1963 08/10/2009 10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court 480