CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BF4101 { width:166.26pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2EBECB52 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; list-style-position:inside } .sA0D17C33 { width:1.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 552/07 Leonid Georgiyovych YEMELYANOV and Vira Mykhaylivna YEMELYANOVA against Ukraine and 8 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   December 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates stated in the annexed table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on the various dates stated in the annexed table requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicants mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings and one of them also under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in that regard. The applications were communicated to the Government . THE LAW 1.     The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 13335/08 complained also under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in that regard. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters sent on various dates (see the annexed table) the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the excessive duration of consideration of the applicants’ cases before national courts and, in application no.   13335/08, also lack of effective domestic remedy in that regard. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the annexed table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sums were to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. They would be converted into the local currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They were to be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. 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 the 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 cases. By letters dated on various dates listed in the annexed table, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. The Court recalls 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   (c) enables the Court in particular to 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 applications”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a   respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Pavlyulynets v.   Ukraine , no. 70767/01, §§   39-52, 6 September 2005). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 2.     The applicants, except for the fourth and the seventh, also raised complaints under Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the outcome of the proceedings. The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the annexed table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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 so far as they concern the length of proceedings, and in application no.   13335/08 also the lack of an effective remedy in that regard, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Date of the Government’s UD Date of the applicant’s letter Sum awarded   552/07 24/11/2006 Leonid Georgiyovych YEMELYANOV 12/12/1938 Kyiv Ukrainian   Vira Mykhaylivna YEMELYANOVA 06/02/1944 Kyiv Ukrainian 19/10/2012 07/12/2012 2,340 EUR jointly     20649/07 09/05/2007 Nina Pavlivna MUSIYENKO 20/05/1953 Chernigiv Ukrainian 10/01/2011 17/06/2013 700 EUR     13335/08 22/02/2008 Igor Vladimirovich STRYZHENYUK 15/03/1960 Odessa Ukrainian 14/06/2013 06/08/2013 1,530 EUR     34089/11 25/05/2011 Tatyana Karolyevna KOVALENKO 23/07/1958 Nikopol Ukrainian 31/05/2012 17/07/2012 1,700 EUR     46064/11 15/07/2011 Nikolay Nikolayevich SANZHAREVSKIY 04/05/1950 Manchenky Ukrainian 07/08/2012 19/08/2013 2,400 EUR     48032/11 11/07/2011 Galyna Oleksandrivna GYRDYMOVA 18/10/1941 Illichivsk Ukrainian 20/03/2012 27/06/2012 600 EUR     48857/11 03/08/2011 Alla Nikolayevna CHEREDNYK 21/12/1956 Prague Ukrainian 04/04/2012 22/07/2013 5,600 EUR     55339/11 25/08/2011 Vasiliy Anatolyevich DZIGUNSKIY 21/09/1977 Kherson Ukrainian 09/08/2012 15/10/2012 1,200 EUR     58254/11 09/09/2011 Natalya Yevseyevna BILAN 19/04/1956 Berezivka Ukrainian 10/05/2012 18/07/2012 1,200 EUR