LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
BONDAR v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Doc ref: 21748/08, 15090/10, 17940/09, 21901/10, 23863/10, 30483/10, 3898/11, 43435/10, 48006/10, 51730/08, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-113116
Document date: August 28, 2012
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
BONDAR v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Doc ref: 21748/08, 15090/10, 17940/09, 21901/10, 23863/10, 30483/10, 3898/11, 43435/10, 48006/10, 51730/08, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-113116
Document date: August 28, 2012
Cited paragraphs only
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 21748/08 Viktor Volodymyrovych BONDAR against Ukraine and 19 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 August 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger , President, Karel Jungwiert , André Potocki , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates specified in the annexed table ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the annexed table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy , of the Ministry of Justice.
In the application no.7786/10 the applicant died on 5 March 2012 and and her heir, Mr O. Balabay , expressed his wish to pursue the application.
On various dates the domestic courts delivered judgments in the applicants ’ cases and ordered the domestic authorities to pay them certain amounts. The judgments became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on various provisions of the Convention, the applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
2 . The Government submitted several unilateral declarations with a view to settling the applicants ’ cases. By the declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants ’ judgments and declared that they were ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding judgement debts and the compensation sums specified in the annexed table. In some declarations the Government referred to the ex gratia principle of such payment. The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The declarations also provided that the compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that may be applicable and would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them 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.
The applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, though some of them questioned the Government ’ s compliance.
The Court reiterates 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 in paragraph 1 (a), (b) or (c) of that Article. Article 37 § 1 in fine states:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
In the light of the applicants ’ agreement with the Government ’ s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is relevant in the present cases. This is in line with the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment ( cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify the continued examination.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s unilateral declarations and the applicants ’ comments thereon;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Application number
Applicant ’ s name , year of birth
Date of introduction
Domestic judgments about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (date of the judgment and name of the court)
Date of the Government ’ s
unilateral declaration
Compensation offered by the Government (euro)
21748/08
Viktor Volodymyrovych BONDAR, 1962
11 April 2008
5 November 2002,
Svyato shynskyy District Court of Kyiv
21 October 2011
1,605
51730/08
Igor Georgiyovych MALASHEVYCH, 1957
16 October 2008
26 March 2004,
Bogun skyy District Court of Zhytomyr
17 February 2012
1,395
17940/09
Mykola Grygorovych POSTOLYUK, 1949
10 March 2009
3 December 2007,
Tetiyiv Court
3 February 2012
735
7149/10
Aleksandr Ivanovich ROMASHCHENKO, 1959
26 January 2010
14 November 2008,
Sovyetsk yy District Court of Makiyivka
8 december 2011
405
7786/10
Olga Demyanivna BUDZHENKO, 1927
29 January 2010
10 March 2009,
Bershady Court
3 February 2012
510
8964/10
SEduard Yurievich SINICHKIN, 1962
29 January 2010
5 June 2007,
Novogrodivka Court
3 February 2012
705
15090/10
Vasyl Vasylyovych MUNITSYN, 1957
4 January 2010
21 October 2005,
Vugledar Court
3 February 2012
1,005
21901/10
Volodymyr Borysovych
ROZHDESTVENSKYY, 1959
10 March 2010
4 October 2010
21 September 2007 and 26 August 2008 ,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
780
64228/10
23863/10
Dmytro Oleksandrovych MAKOVOZ, 1979
12 April 2010
11 December 2007,
Pervomaysk Court
3 February 2012
735
30483/10
Viktor Mykhaylovych STEPURKO, 1961
25 May 2010
18 October 2007 ,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
765
43435/10
Vitaliy Petrovich GOYVAN,
1939Kateryna Volodymyrivna GOYVAN,
194122 July 2010
12 September 2006,
Dnipropetr ovsk Regional Court of Appeal
28 March 2012
810
48006/10
Lyudmyla Ivanivna VLASENKO, 1945
13 August 2010
26 September 2008,
Zhytomyr District Adm inistrative Court
3 February 2012
600
56248/10
Stepan Oleksandrovych ROKYTENETS, 1928
20 September 2010
3 April 2008,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
690
60895/10
Anastasiya Dmytrivna BONDARCHUK, 1929
8 October 2010
13 December 2007,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
735
65438/10
Oleksiy Fedorovych KUSTOVSKYY, 1952
20 October 2010
14 February 2008,
Tetiyiv Court
2 February 2012
705
68440/10
Anton Yosypovych VESELSKYY, 1933
9 November 2010
2 April 2008,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
690
70858/10
Gennadiy Oleksandrovych GRYSHCHENKO, 1945
22 November 2010
29 November 2007,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
750
75217/10
Vasyl Grygorovych KOBYLINSKYY,1943
10 December 2010
12 October 2007,
Zhytomy r District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
765
3898/11
Volodymyr Grygorovych KHILYA, 1939
31 December 2010
13 May 2008,
Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
3 February 2012
660
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
