FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 68049/13 Vitaliy Vasylyovych MAKARUK against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, judges, and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2013 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 January 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Vasylyovych Makaruk , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Lutsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. A. Korenga , a lawyer practising in Lutsk .

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of excessive length of his criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedy in respect of his grievances.

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the excessive length of his criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedy in respect of his grievances. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of consideration of the applicant ’ s case before the national courts and lack of effective domestic remedies.

The Government of Ukraine offer to pay Mr Vitaliy Vasylyovych Makaruk EUR 1 , 080 (one thousand and eighty euros).

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration 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 above sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 this sum within the above three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

By a letter of 10 February 2015 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

The Cour t re iterates 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 application”.

It also re iterates t hat in certain circumstances, it may strike out an 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 case to be continued.

To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in t he 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, 18 September 2007).

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; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 ; and Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 70, 30 March 2004 ).

Having regard to the nature of 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)).

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 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 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).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 July 2015 .

Milan Blaško Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar President