PROKOPENKO v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 6132/09 • ECHR ID: 001-145692
Document date: June 17, 2014
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 4 Outbound citations:
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 6132/09 Yevgen Valeriyovych PROKOPENKO against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 17 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger , President, Vincent A. D e Gaetano , André Potocki , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2009 ,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 11 January 2014 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 Yevgen Valeriyovych Prokopenko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Romny .
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent .
The applicant complain ed under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings to which he was the party and of lack of an effective remedy in respect of his grievances.
The application was communicated to the Government .
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy in this respect . He relied on Article s 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 11 January 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 that domestic authorities have violated the applicant ’ s rights, guaranteed by Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
The Government of Ukraine are ready to pay Mr Yevgen Valeriyovych Prokopenko the just satisfaction in the amount of EUR 2,200.
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 sum of EUR 2,200, 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 2014 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with 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).
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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 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.
Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar President