CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sF5C64699 { width:201.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s38B25D7A { height:29.15pt } .s4E34B50A { 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s1C2B10C2 { 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 } .sF004B676 { 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:top } .s79E3263B { height:21.5pt } .sFED3270D { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .s6B5C357D { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .s1C93675A { 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:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s358E56C { height:6.1pt } .sFBDE9B2C { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .sCB769CA9 { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .sB9AE580D { 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:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBFC54D38 { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .s437B6134 { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .sF4E4AFBA { 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:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s3A1F5D7A { height:22.75pt } .sA70221B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:9pt } .s3B53EBD4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 12323/05 Ivan Yukhymovych BASOV and Others against Ukraine and 17 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   December 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 applications lodged on the dates specified in the attached table, 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies thereon, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table attached below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev, Ms   Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. In the application no. 8083/09 the applicant died in November 2009, his widow Mrs Bezugla having expressed the wish to pursue the application. On various dates (see the table below) the national courts ordered the domestic authorities to pay various amounts to the applicants. Those judgments became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. THE LAW 1.     The Court considers that the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background. 2.     On various dates (see the table below) the Government submitted several unilateral declarations with a view to settling the applicants’ cases. By these declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments and undertook to enforce the judgments that were still subject to enforcement and to pay the applicants various compensation sums (see the table below). The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggest that the declarations 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 compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement [1] . They would 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 undertook 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 would constitute the final resolution of the cases. In reply, the applicants agreed with the declarations, even though some of them doubted that the Government would comply with them. 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)-(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 [...] 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 applicants’ consent with the Government’s declarations, 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 cases. 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 cases. Accordingly, they 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 unilateral declarations and the applicants’ replies thereon; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Stephen Phillips   Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application number, applicant’s name and date of birth Date of introduction Domestic judgments about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (date of the judgment and name of the court) Date of the declaration; sums offered by the Government (in euros) 1. 12323/05 1). BASOV , Ivan Yukhymovych, 1941, 2). BEZVERKHYY , Oleksandr Mykhaylovych, 1950, 3). GONCHAROV , Mykola Vasylyovych, 1950, 4). LANTUSHENKO , Yuriy Fedorovych, 1948, 5). OLIYNYK , Valeriy Borysovych, 1963, 6). PARKHOMENKO , Olga Mykhaylivna, 1960, 7). PROKOPENKO , Oleksandr Borysovych, 1966, 8). SINASHENKO , Viktor Grygorovych, 1953, 9). YASHCHENKO , Vladyslav Andriyovych, 1952, 10). KHVOSTYK , Sergiy Grygorovych, 1965, 11). SAKHNYUK , Valentyn Grygorovych, 1948, 12). RUNOV , Volodymyr Yuriyovych, 1969, 13). DEMCHENKO , Mykola Oleksandrovych, 1964, 14). MATUS , Valeriy Vyacheslavovych, 1968, 15). ILCHENKO , Olena Yukhymivna, 1953, 16). LUZAN , Larysa Viktorivna, 1962, 17). RYBALKA , Volodymyr Grygorovych, 1961, 18). SHEVCHENKO , Volodymyr Albertovych, 1965, 19). SYBILYOVA , Lyubov Oleksiyivna, 1956, 20). BILETSKYY , Oleksandr Mykhaylovych, 1965, 21). DUBROVNA , Valentyna Volodymyrivna, 1966, 22). POPRUGA , Sergiy Volodymyrovych, 1964, 23). KALINICHENKO , Petro Mykhaylovych, 1939, 24). CHERNOMAZ , Anatoliy Maksymovych, 1937 25). DANYLCHENKO , Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna, 1945 15 March 2005 21 May 2003, Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv                           30 July 2010; 525 (to each applicant) 2. 8083/09 PLYEVAK , Ivan Dmytrovych, 1935 27 January 2009 29 January 2008, Tetiyiv Court 13 September 2010; 465 3. 9371/09 MAYSTRUK , Vasyl Oleksandrovych, 1953 27 January 2009 30 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011; 675 4. 65582/09 MATLASH , Viktor Stepanovych, 1955 3 December 2009 11 February and 17 June 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended, respectively, on 26 August 2008 and 31 March 2009 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 540 5. 11986/10 ALYEKSYEYCHUK , Illya Pylypovych, 1946 17 February 2010 25 April 2008, Oleksandriya Court 30 September 2011; 510 6. 16575/10 PASHKOV , Anatoliy Yegorovych, 1939 12 March 2010 29 January 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended on 25 September 2008 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 525 7. 35949/10 KOVAL , Viktor Mykolayovych, 1954 8 June 2010 17 November 2008, Oleksandriya Court 30 September 2011; 405 8. 38809/10 SICHKARUK , Andriy Fedorovych, 1943 28 June 2010 13 December 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011, 675 9. 39638/10 ONOPA , Oleksandr Mykolayovych, 1960 22 June 2010 11 December 2008, Oleksandriya Court 30 September 2011; 450 10. 39777/10 BAZARKULOV , Kylychbek, 1954 6 July 2010 8 November 2007, Oleksandriya Court (as amended on 7 October 2008 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 525 11. 51102/10 CHECHELNYTSKYY , Volodymyr Ivanovych, 1958 21 July 2010 11 February and 22 July 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended, respectively, on 5   August 2008 and 17 February 2009 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 555 12. 64722/10 FAYER , Ganna Adamivna, 1948 27 October 2010 26 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011; 690 13. 68455/10 YURCHENKO , Ganna Tarasivna, 1942 20 October 2010 26 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011; 690 14. 68457/10 KRYVORUCHENKO , Vira Tsezarivna, 1949 21 October 2010 21 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011; 690 15. 70918/10 KOSHELENKO , Mykola Vasylyovych, 1955 19 November 2010 11 April 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended on 10 December 2008 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 495 16. 73249/10 VERESKUN , Sergiy Anatoliyovych, 1962 17 November 2010 15 May 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended on 20 January 2009 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 480 17. 74040/10 ZAKHARCHUK , Nila Dmytrivna, 1946 2 December 2010 27 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court 3 October 2011; 675 18. 3172/11 FEOKTISTOV , Grygoriy Fedorovych, 1961 3 January 2011 29 January 2008, Oleksandriya Court (as amended on 25 September 2008 by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal) 30 September 2011; 540   [1] .     Some declarations did not initially contain the currency conversion clause. Subsequently the Government amended them accordingly.