CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF5C64699 { width:201.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11595/08 by Dina Semenivna BILSKA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   November 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2008, 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 application out of the list of cases, the supplement to it and the applicant’s replies thereon, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Dina Semenivna Bilska, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Zhytomyr. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice. By a judgment of 23 April 2001, the domestic court ordered the local authorities to pay the applicant certain amounts. The judgment became final, but remains unenforced. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the above judgment. THE LAW By a letter dated 13 September 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to settling the applicant’s case. By this declaration, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicant’s judgment and undertook to pay her the outstanding debt according to that judgment as well as the ex gratia sum of 1,665 euros. The remainder of the declaration read as follows: “The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the [application] 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 [sum] ex gratia [is] 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. [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. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the [case]”. By a letter dated 9 December 2010, the Government supplemented the above declaration with the provision that the ex gratia sum would “be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement”. The applicant agreed both with the declaration and with the supplement to it. 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 in paragraph 1 (a), (b) or (c) 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 recalls that in its pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , 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 light of the applicant’s agreement with the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the case. This is also in line with the pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , cited above, §   99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the case. Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration, the supplement to it and the applicant’s replies thereon; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Stephen Phillips   Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar   President