Lexploria

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 644/05 Mariya Yukhymivna LAZEBNA against Ukraine and 30 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 April 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 various dates,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

Mr Solomin (no. 35439/06) is a Russian national and the remaining applicants are Ukrainian nationals; the applicants ’ details are specified in the table below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Valeria Lutkovska and Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy , of the Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On the dates set out in the table below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay them various pecuniary amounts or take certain actions. The judgments in the applicants ’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of them also raised other complaints.

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. After the communication of the cases to the respondent Government some applicants raised new complaints about the delayed enforcement of other judgments given in their favour. In the Court ’ s view, these complaints are not an elaboration of the applicants ’ original complaints (see Piryanik v. Ukraine , no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005). Therefore, the scope of the cases before it is limited to the applicants ’ original complaints. Their new complaints will be dealt with in separate applications.

3. Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009- ... (extracts)), on various dates (see the table below) the Government submitted several unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applicants. In these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants ’ favour, expressed their readiness to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet and offered the applicants various compensation sums (for the sums, see the table below).

The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and suggested that the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking o ut of the case under 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, to be converted into the national currency of Ukraine at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, and would be free of any taxes that might be chargeable [1] . They would 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 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. This payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases or did not provide any comments.

The Court reiterates that it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under Article 37 § 1 (a)-(c) of the Convention. In particular, under Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court may 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.

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”.

The Court also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court recalls that in the aforementioned pilot judgment it ordered Ukraine to grant redress to the applicants whose applications were communicated to the Government before the delivery of the judgment or would be communicated further to the judgment and concerned complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part ). Having examined the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants the redress in accordance with the pilot judgment.

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants ’ favour and undertake to enforce the judgments which have not been enforced yet. It also notes that the compensation sums offered by the Government are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia , of the specific delay in each particular case.

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the applications. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.

4. Having carefully examined the applicants ’ remaining complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations in respect of the applicants ’ complaints about the delayed enforcement of the domestic judgments in their favour;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President

TABLE

No.

Application number, applicant ’ s name and date of birth

Date of lodging

Domestic courts and dates of judgments about the delayed enforcement of which the applicants complain

Dates of unilateral declarations/sums offered by the Government

(in euros )

1.

644/05

LAZEBNA ,

Mariya Yukhymivna , 1949

22 December 2004

Desnyanskyy District

Court of Chernigiv ,

10 February and 17 March 2004

14 July 2011,

1,290

2.

8785/05

SHCHERBA ,

Galyna Orestivna , 1972

16 February 2005

Kyiv City Court of Appeal,

29 August 2005

7 November 2011

1,110

3.

21249/06

NAGLYUK ,

Petro Antonovych , 1941

11 May 2006

Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court ,

21 January 2004 and 22 September 2005

15 July 2011,

1,335

4.

35439/06

SOLOMIN ,

Leonid Borisovich , 1939

30 March 2006

Kirovskyy District Court of Makiyivka , 30 June 2004

14 July 2011,

465

5.

5158/07

KUZYAK ,

Valentyna Nazhmudynivna , 1948

12 January 2007

Sarny Court ,

27 January 2004

7 November 2011,

1,380

6.

23056/07

SEREDA ,

Mariya Leonidovna , 1935

23 April 2007

Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, 4 February 2005

12 October 2011,

1,020

7.

26938/07

KO L ES NIKOVA ,

Tatyana Vladimirovna , 1952

20 June 2007

Snizhne Court ,

16 May 2003

14 July 2011,

1,440

8.

4460/08

KARPACHEVA ,

Lyudmila Vladimirovna , 1938

16 January 2008

Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk , 12 December 2001

7 November 2011,

1,770

9.

6450/08

BRATYK ,

Vasyl Yosypovych , 1953

22 January 2008

Kalush Court ,

5 April and 3 August 2005

15 July 2011,

1,095

10.

10838/08

TUROV ,

Arnold Aleksandrovich , 1934

20 February 2008

Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv,

29 November 2006

14 July 2011,

405

11.

15318/08

YATSYNA ,

Volodymyr Mykhaylovych , 1937

12 March 2008

Kryukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk , 14 December 2004

7 November 2011,

1,230

12.

33288/08

SUDARIKOV ,

Yevgeniy Vasilyevich , 1969

2 July 2008

Dzerzhinsk Court , 23 October 2003 (as amended on 12 February 2004)

9 December 2010,

1,140

13.

57779/08

ZAMARAYEV ,

Georgiy Oleksiyovych , 1956

17 November 2008

Suvorovskyy District Court of Kherson, 22 June 2005

15 July 2011,

480

14.

6918/09

ADAMENKO ,

Viktor Konstantinovich , 1925

26 January 2009

Antratsyt Court ,

10 September and 9 October 2007

17 August 2011,

705

15.

26794/09

TRETYAKOV ,

Georgiy Georgiyevich , 1940

25 March 2009

Saky Court,

23 April 2008

12 August 2011,

465

16.

47995/09

DESYATOV ,

Viktor Mykolayovych , 1956

18 August 2009

Starokostyantyniv Court ,

6 September 2006

9 December 2010,

735

17.

49975/09

KYRYCHENKO ,

Yuriy Yakovych , 1973

30 August 2009

Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv ,

28 February 2002

28 May 2010,

1,440

18.

52551/09

TASHCHI ,

Tamara Mykhaylivna , 1933

21 September 2009

Sverdlovsk Court ,

23 March 2006

7 November 2011,

960

19.

10898/10

ZHYTNIK ,

Volodymyr Lvovych , 1949

10 February 2010

Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy,

10 November 2008

12 October 2011,

510

20.

16637/10

SAMOYLENKO ,

Anatoliy Oleksiyovych , 1940

13 March 2010

Amur- Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk ,

29 May 2007

11 November 2011,

795

21.

33143/10

SHOBOTENKO ,

Yevgeniy Grygorovych , 1949

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

28 November 2007

12 October 2011,

690

22.

33158/10

PANCHENKO ,

Alevtyna Gennadiyivna , 1981

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

5 March 2008

12 October 2011,

645

23.

33170/10

KUCHERENKO ,

Oleksandr Grygorovych , 1959

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

26 June 2008

12 October 2011,

585

24.

33176/10

NIKIFOROV ,

Oleksandr Ivanovych , 1945

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

18 June 2008

12 October 2011,

585

25.

33182/10

KOZAK ,

Lyubov Ivanivna , 1960

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

7 December 2007

12 October 2011,

690

26.

33190/10

OKHRIMENKO ,

Olga Mykolayivna , 1959

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

21 November 2007

12 October 2011,

690

27.

33193/10

SAMSONYUK ,

Nina Mykhaylivna , 1957

20 May 2010

Brovary Court ,

9 April 2008

12 October 2011,

630

28.

35553/10

MISHCHYSHENA ,

Nina Anatoliyivna , 1961

14 June 2010

Lutsk Court ,

8 November 2002

12 October 2011,

1,590

29.

42867/10

MAKEYEVA,

Tatyana Viktorovna , 1960

21 July 2010

Kostyantynivka Court ,

3 July 2002

12 January 2012,

1,695

30.

66663/10

ZBOROVSKA ,

Inna Anatolivna , 1970

25 October 2010

Teplodar Court ,

9 April 2009

26 October 2011,

330

31.

5346/11

MASIK ,

Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna , 1930

11 January 2011

Konotop Court ,

2 October 2007

11 November 2011,

735[1] . As some of the declarations did not initially contain the currency conversion and tax exemption clauses, the Government subsequently supplemented them accordingly

Menu

LAZEBNA v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

LAZEBNA v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

LEXI