FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20427/06 Zinaida Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA and Anna Ivanovna VOLOBUYEVA against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 November 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Faris Vehabović , Carlo Ranzoni, judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on the date indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The first applicant, Ms Zinaida Petrovna Volobuyeva , was born on 14 October 1955.

The second applicant Ms Anna Ivanovna Volobuyeva , was born on 6 May 1984.

Both applicants are Ukrainian nationals and live in the city of Yalta, Crimea.

The applicants ’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the decision of the Yalta Court of 30 March 2001 were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).

On 6 May 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of the Yalta Court of 30 March 2001.

THE LAW

The Court observes that the second applicant has never been a separate party to the judicial and enforcement proceedings under examination, and the judgment in question was rendered in favour of the first applicant only.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the complaints of the second applicant are inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaints of the first applicant. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the excessive delay in enforcement of the domestic decision. They offered to pay the first applicant the amount of EUR 1,575 and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.

The Court has not received a response from the first applicant accepting the terms of the unilateral declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court ’ s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI)).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decision.

The applicants also raised other complaints under the same articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration in so far as it concerns the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the domestic decision , and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 December 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1

( non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

(in euros) [i]

20427/06

15/05/2006

Zinaida Petrovna VOLOBUYEVA

14/10/1955

06/07/2011

1,575

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.