CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5B12D80C { width:187.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s23CD0580 { 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 } .s88A4DB4E { 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { 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 } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .s11BEB50D { 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 } .sEAD70FA9 { 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 } .s241BF43A { 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 } .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. 644/05 Mariya Yukhymivna LAZEBNA against Ukraine and 30 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10   April   2012 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 various dates, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS Mr Solomin (no. 35439/06) is a Russian national and the remaining applicants are Ukrainian nationals; the applicants’ details are specified in the table below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On the dates set out in the table below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay them various pecuniary amounts or take certain actions. The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of them also raised other complaints. THE LAW 1.     The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background. 2.     After the communication of the cases to the respondent Government some applicants raised new complaints about the delayed enforcement of other judgments given in their favour. In the Court’s view, these complaints are not an elaboration of the applicants’ original complaints (see Piryanik v.   Ukraine , no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005). Therefore, the scope of the cases before it is limited to the applicants’ original complaints. Their new complaints will be dealt with in separate applications. 3.     Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (no.   40450/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)), on various dates (see the table below) the Government submitted several unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applicants. In these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour, expressed their readiness to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet and offered the applicants various compensation sums (for the sums, see the table below). The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and suggested that the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case under Article 37   §   1 (c) of the Convention. The declarations also provided that the compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of Ukraine at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, and would be free of any taxes that might be chargeable [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. The applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases or did not provide any comments. The Court reiterates that it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under Article 37 § 1 (a)-(c) of the Convention. In particular, under Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court may strike a case out of its list if for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court recalls that in the aforementioned pilot judgment it ordered Ukraine to grant redress to the applicants whose applications were communicated to the Government before the delivery of the judgment or would be communicated further to the judgment and concerned complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part). Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants the redress in accordance with the pilot judgment. The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour and undertake to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet. It also notes that the compensation sums offered by the Government are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delay in each particular case. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the applications. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list. 4.     Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments in their favour; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Mark Villiger   Deputy Registrar   President   TABLE   No. Application number, applicant’s name and date of birth Date of lodging Domestic courts and dates of judgments about the delayed enforcement of which the applicants complain Dates of unilateral declarations/sums offered by the Government (in euros) 1. 644/05 LAZEBNA , Mariya Yukhymivna, 1949 22 December 2004 Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv, 10 February and 17   March 2004 14 July 2011, 1,290 2. 8785/05 SHCHERBA , Galyna Orestivna, 1972 16 February 2005 Kyiv City Court of Appeal, 29 August 2005 7 November 2011 1,110 3. 21249/06 NAGLYUK , Petro Antonovych, 1941 11 May 2006 Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 21 January 2004 and 22 September 2005 15 July 2011, 1,335 4. 35439/06 SOLOMIN , Leonid Borisovich, 1939 30 March 2006 Kirovskyy District Court of Makiyivka, 30 June 2004 14 July 2011, 465 5. 5158/07 KUZYAK , Valentyna Nazhmudynivna, 1948 12 January 2007 Sarny Court, 27 January 2004 7 November 2011, 1,380 6. 23056/07 SEREDA , Mariya Leonidovna, 1935 23 April 2007 Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, 4 February 2005 12 October 2011, 1,020 7. 26938/07 KOLESNIKOVA , Tatyana Vladimirovna, 1952 20 June 2007   Snizhne Court, 16 May 2003 14 July 2011, 1,440 8. 4460/08 KARPACHEVA , Lyudmila Vladimirovna, 1938 16 January 2008 Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk, 12 December 2001 7 November 2011, 1,770 9. 6450/08 BRATYK , Vasyl Yosypovych, 1953 22 January 2008 Kalush Court, 5 April and 3 August 2005 15 July 2011, 1,095 10. 10838/08 TUROV , Arnold Aleksandrovich, 1934 20 February 2008 Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv, 29 November 2006 14 July 2011, 405 11. 15318/08 YATSYNA , Volodymyr Mykhaylovych, 1937 12 March 2008 Kryukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 14 December 2004 7 November 2011, 1,230 12. 33288/08 SUDARIKOV , Yevgeniy Vasilyevich, 1969 2 July 2008 Dzerzhinsk Court, 23 October 2003 (as amended on 12 February 2004) 9 December 2010, 1,140 13. 57779/08 ZAMARAYEV , Georgiy Oleksiyovych, 1956 17 November 2008 Suvorovskyy District Court of Kherson, 22 June 2005 15 July 2011, 480 14. 6918/09 ADAMENKO , Viktor Konstantinovich, 1925 26 January 2009 Antratsyt Court, 10 September and 9 October 2007 17 August 2011, 705 15. 26794/09 TRETYAKOV , Georgiy Georgiyevich, 1940 25 March 2009 Saky Court, 23 April 2008 12 August 2011, 465 16. 47995/09 DESYATOV , Viktor Mykolayovych, 1956 18 August 2009 Starokostyantyniv Court, 6 September 2006 9 December 2010, 735 17. 49975/09 KYRYCHENKO , Yuriy Yakovych, 1973 30 August 2009 Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv, 28 February 2002 28 May 2010, 1,440 18. 52551/09 TASHCHI , Tamara Mykhaylivna, 1933 21 September 2009 Sverdlovsk Court, 23 March 2006 7 November 2011, 960 19. 10898/10 ZHYTNIK , Volodymyr Lvovych, 1949 10 February 2010 Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy, 10 November 2008 12 October 2011, 510 20. 16637/10 SAMOYLENKO , Anatoliy Oleksiyovych, 1940 13 March 2010 Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, 29 May 2007 11 November 2011, 795 21. 33143/10 SHOBOTENKO , Yevgeniy Grygorovych, 1949 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 28 November 2007 12 October 2011, 690 22. 33158/10 PANCHENKO , Alevtyna Gennadiyivna, 1981 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 5 March 2008 12 October 2011, 645 23. 33170/10 KUCHERENKO , Oleksandr Grygorovych, 1959 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 26 June 2008 12 October 2011, 585 24. 33176/10 NIKIFOROV , Oleksandr Ivanovych, 1945 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 18 June 2008 12 October 2011, 585 25. 33182/10 KOZAK , Lyubov Ivanivna, 1960 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 7 December 2007 12 October 2011, 690 26. 33190/10 OKHRIMENKO , Olga Mykolayivna, 1959 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 21 November 2007 12 October 2011, 690 27. 33193/10 SAMSONYUK , Nina Mykhaylivna, 1957 20 May 2010 Brovary Court, 9 April 2008 12 October 2011, 630 28. 35553/10 MISHCHYSHENA , Nina Anatoliyivna, 1961 14 June 2010 Lutsk Court, 8 November 2002 12 October 2011, 1,590 29. 42867/10 MAKEYEVA, Tatyana Viktorovna, 1960 21 July 2010 Kostyantynivka Court, 3 July 2002 12 January 2012, 1,695 30. 66663/10 ZBOROVSKA , Inna Anatolivna, 1970 25 October 2010 Teplodar Court,   9 April 2009 26 October 2011, 330 31. 5346/11 MASIK , Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna, 1930 11 January 2011 Konotop Court, 2 October 2007 11 November 2011, 735   [1] .     As some of the declarations did not initially contain the currency conversion and tax exemption clauses, the Government subsequently supplemented them accordingly