Search
document

PSHECHENKO v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

Doc ref: 1259/06, 17224/09, 1776/08, 18646/09, 22896/09, 24311/07, 29727/09, 31085/07, 33059/08, 35235/08, 39... • ECHR ID: 001-107783

Document date: November 15, 2011

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

PSHECHENKO v. UKRAINE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

Doc ref: 1259/06, 17224/09, 1776/08, 18646/09, 22896/09, 24311/07, 29727/09, 31085/07, 33059/08, 35235/08, 39... • ECHR ID: 001-107783

Document date: November 15, 2011

Cited paragraphs only

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 1259/06 Vladimir Pavlovich PSHECHENKO against Ukraine and 20 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 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 attached table ,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009 ‑ ... (extracts)),

Having regard to the unilateral declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies thereon,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the attached table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska , of the Ministry of Justice .

On the dates set out in the attached table the domestic courts or the labour disputes commissions (“the LDC”) ordered the domestic authorities to take certain actions or to pay various pecuniary amounts to the applicants. 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. By letter s dated 21 April, 4 May and 12-15 July 2011, t he Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration s , signed on the same date s , with a view to settling the applicants ’ non-enforcement complaints . By these declarations, the Government acknowledge d the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants ’ judgments and undertook to enforce the judgments that were still subject to enforcement and to pay the applicants ex gratia sum s as specified in the annexes to th e declaration s (for the sums, see table below). The remainder of the declarations read as follows:

“ The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration [s] 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 sums [ ex gratia ] ... are to cover any p ecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement . [They] 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the cases ” .

In reply, the applicants agreed with the terms of the declarations , even though some of them doubt ed that the Government would comply with the declarations .

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” .

The Court further recalls that in its pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , cited above ) it required Ukraine to

“grant adequate and sufficient redress within one year [1] from the date on which the present judgment [became] final, to all applicants [...] whose complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions [had] been communicated to the respondent Government”.

In the light of the applicants ’ agreement with the Government ’ s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This is also in line with the pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , cited above , § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the non-enforcement complaints. Accordingly, they s hould be struck out of the list.

3. Having carefully examined the remainder of the complaints raised by some of the applicants in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is 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 complaints 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 declaration s in respect of the applicants ’ complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment s given in the applicants ’ favour and the applicants ’ replies thereon ;

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 (b) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX

No.

Application number,

applicant ’ s name

and date 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/LDC)

Compensation offered by the Government

(in euros )

1259/06

PSHECHENKO ,

Vladimir Pavlovich , 1962

14 December 2005

23 December 1998, LDC of JSC “ Krasnyy Profintern ”;

20 November 2002, Krasnogvardiyskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk ;

27 October 2004, Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk

2,265

9651/07

MAYSTRENKO ,

Vitaliy Valeriyevich , 1944

9 February 2007

28 October 2005, Yuzhnyy Court

1,020

3916/07

S O MENKO ,

Vladimir Ivanovich , 1956

12 December 2006

16 June 2006 and 28 April 2007, Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson

705

24311/07

ZABOLOTNYY ,

Pavel Leonidovich , 1966

19 September 2007

13 September and 18 October 2006, Krasnyy Luch Court

840

31085/07

SAPRYKIN ,

Ivan Yakovlevich , 1947

27 June 2007

18 August 2003 and 15 April 2005, Nova Kakhovka Court

1 , 335

39573/07

ZADOROZHNIY ,

Anatoliy Mikhaylovich , 1940

27 August 2007

18 August 2003 and 30 March 2005, Nova Kakhovka Court

1,335

39569/07

KULAY ,

Lyubov Nikolayevna , 1965

27 August 2007

18 August 2003 and 30 March 2005, Nova Kakhovka Court

1,335

41584/07

VERETCHAK ,

Valentina Ivanovna , 1949

13 September 2007

29 October 2002, LDC of JSC “ Spetsmontazhgeologiya ”

1,530

1776/08

MARCHUK ,

Aleksandr Pavlovich , 1935

29 December 2007

3 November 2003, Stakhaniv Court

1,335

10.

33059/08

BESPALKO ,

Mykola Vasylyovych , 1948

23 June 2008

7 April 2008 , Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

300

11.

35235/08

KARPENKO ,

Mykola Vasylyovych , not specified

8 July 2008

6 May 2006, Bila Tserkva Court

900

12.

48663/08

BOYKO ,

Vera Sergeyevna , 1984

27 September 2008

15 August 2005 , О vruch Court

1,050

13.

8394/09

YUZVAK ,

Yaroslav Yosypovych , 1963

20 January 2009

17 May 2007 , Chervonograd Court

735

14.

17224/09

GAVRYLYUK ,

Anatoliy Mykolayovych , 1959

19 March 2009

1 April 1998, Ivankiv Court

1,920

15.

18646/09

DON-ENERDZHY

28 March 2009

26 February 2008, Donetsk Regional Commercial Court

585

16.

22896/09

MAYBORODA ,

Volodymyr Pylypovych , 1938

9 April 2009

26 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court

645

17.

29727/09

MITROFANOVA ,

Tamara Ivanovna , 1940, and

LOBAN ,

Volodymyr Matviyovych , 1936

23 May 2009

21 March 2003, Krasnoarmiysk District Court

1,440 to each

18.

40886/09

KOSTENKO ,

Vitaliy Dmitriyevich , 1937

20 July 2009

16 January 2007, Krasnyy Luch Court

765

19.

47137/09

POGOYDASH ,

Vitaliy Ivanovych , 1972

22 August 2009

21 November 2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

645

20.

49480/09

TOKUNOV ,

Mykola Grygorovych , 1939

27 August 2009

4 December 2007, Tetiyiv Court

645

21.

49586/09

NECHYPORENKO ,

Iryna Oleksiyivna , 1938

26 August 2009

6 December 2007, Tarashcha Court

645[1] . This term was further extended for another six months.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant