FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 4939/08 Mykola Prokopovych KOROL against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 September 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 27 December 2007 ,

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 applicant, Mr Mykola Prokopovych Korol, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Popilnya.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic court decision were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).

On 21 November 2014 the applicant, providing documents in support, informed the Court that the decision of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal dated 31 May 2005 had been enforced on 29 November 2013.

THE LAW

1. The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant ’ s complaints. 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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicant the amount EUR 1,095 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 applicant which accepts 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 wishes 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, for example, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 40450/04 , 15 October 2009).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration 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 declaration, 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 decisions.

2. The applicant also raised other complaints under various 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 they concern the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions , and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike a 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 20 October 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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]

4939/08

27/12/2007

Mykola Prokopovych KOROL

05/06/1943

14/07/2011

1,095

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