FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 59225/12 Oleksandra Pavlivna DUBROVINA against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. D e Gaetano , President, Ganna Yudkivska , André Potocki , judges , and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 June 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Ms Oleksandra Pavlivna Dubrovina , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1923 and lives in Kharkiv .

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the len g th of the civil proceedin g s to which she was the party was excessive .

The application was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of proceedings . She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 27 June 2014 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 violation of the applicant ’ s right about excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant ’ s case before the national courts.

The Government of Ukraine offer to pay to M s Oleksandr a Pavlivna Dubrovina EUR 1,080 (one thousand and eighty euros) to cover any pec uniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses , plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

This sum will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicab le on the date of payment and 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 said 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. Th e payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The Government ’ s unilateral declaration was sent to the applicant, who was invited to submit comments on it before 8 August 2014. The Court has not received any reply and therefore considers that the applicant does not accept the terms of the unilateral declaration.

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 application”.

It also recalls that 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 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, 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; 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 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 Article 6 § 1 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.

Stephen Phillips Vincent A. de Gaetano Registrar President