Lexploria

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 50687/06 by Leonid Mikhaylovich SHRAM and 41 other applications against Ukraine (see annex for other applications)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Mark Villiger , President, Karel Jungwiert , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , judges, and Stephen Phillips Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates ,

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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant s are 42 Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Lutkovska , 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 annexed table below t he national courts , holding in favour of the a pplicants , ordered the authorities or State-owned companies to pay various amounts to the applicants.

These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints.

THE LAW

The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.

A. Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour

Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment cited above , the Government submitted to the Court the unilateral declaration aimed at resolving the issue raised by the applications. They requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration reads as follows:

“ The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants ’ judgments.

The Government are ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding debts according to the judgements of the national authorities, as well as to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums in accordance with annex no. 1 to this declaration.

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications 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 sums ex gratia are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable , 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. ”

The applicants disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient.

The Court reiterates that under Article 37 of the Convention 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 (a), (b), or (c) 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.”

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 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 reiterates that in its pilot judgment ( Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above ) it recently ordered Ukraine to

“ grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants whose applications pending before the Court were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court before the delivery of the present judgment or will be communicated further to this judgment and concern arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible, including where complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised;.”

In the same judgment the Court also held that

“ pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases in which the applicants raise arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State is responsible, including cases in which complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised, without prejudice to the Court ’ s power at any moment to declare any such case inadmissible or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention .”

Having examined the terms of the Government ’ s declaration, the Court understands it as intending to give the applicant s redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , cited above, §§ 82 and 99 and point 6 of the operative part).

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants ’ favour. It also notes that the compensations that the Government offered 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 application s . It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the P rotocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the application s .

Accordingly, the relevant parts of the applications which concern the applicants ’ complaints of the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour should be struck out of the list.

B. Remainder of the complaints

Having carefully examined the remainder of the applicants ’ complaints 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 it does 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 declaration in respect of the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour ;

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

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President ANNEX

No.

Appl. Number

Name(s) of the applicant(s), born in

Date of introduction

Domestic decisions about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (name of the court or of another authority, date of the decision)

Compensation offered

(euro)

50687/06

SHRAM LEONID MIKHAYLOVICH

(1935)

16/10/2006

03.03.2006, Sovetskyy District Court of Makiyivka

810

350/07

IGNASHKOVA VALENTYNA STEPANIVNA

(1939)

01/12/2006

26.04.2005, Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv

975

15407/07

POPOV GENNADIY GRIGORYEVICH

(1970)

29/03/2007

28.03.2005, Pervomaysk Court

990

22489/07

SULAYEV LEONID IVANOVICH (1945)

10/05/2007

29.10.2004, Novogrodivka Court

1,065

42505/07

LESIK SVETLANA IVANOVNA (1965)

15/09/2007

17.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

42961/07

PANCHUGINA KSENIYA VLADIMIROVNA

(1970)

15/09/2007

02.10.2003, 01.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,260

42999/07

SHCHURENKO IRINA VIKTOROVNA

(1975)

15/09/2007

16.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

43006/07

POTAPOVA YELENA VLADIMIROVNA

(1975)

15/09/2007

09.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

43014/07

RUDYCHEV VLADIMIR NIKOLAYEVICH

(1951)

15/09/2007

16.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

45995/07

KOROBEYNIKOVA VALENTINA NIKOLAYEVNA (1955)

13/10/2007

07.10.2002, 15.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,440

46067/07

BAYDYSH VASILIY IVANOVICH

1938)

13/10/2007

26.11.2003, 15.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,230

52277/07

YEFANOVA NATALYA YEVGENYEVNA

(1982)

20/11/2007

04.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

930

52281/07

YEFANOV DMITRIY NIKOLAYEVICH

(1980)

20/11/2007

18.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

52284/07

YEFANOVA LYUBOV MIKHAYLOVNA

(1958)

20/11/2007

11.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

52296/07

IVASHCHISHINA LYUDMILA PETROVNA

(1960)

20/11/2007

23.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

52311/07

YEFANOV NIKOLAY VASILYEVICH

(1955)

20/11/2007

18.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

52317/07

NESTEROV VLADIMIR IVANOVICH

1955)

20/11/2007

03.12.2001, 17.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,575

8641/08

AFANASENKO ANATOLIY IVANOVICH

(1964)

25/01/2008

13.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

8675/08

KUZOVENIN VYACHESLAV ANDREYEVICH

(1939)

25/01/2008

24.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

8686/08

KUZOVENIN VYACHESLAV ANDREYEVICH

(1939)

25/01/2008

24.06.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

8707/08

KUZOVENINA VALENTINA DEMYANOVNA

(1948)

25/01/2008

17.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

945

8711/08

SHATOKHINA MARINA MIKHAYLOVNA

(1974)

25/01/2008

11.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

8714/08

SHATOKHIN RUSLAN VLADIMIROVICH

(1974)

25/01/2008

16.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

27301/08

SVETLAKOVA LYUDMYLA IVANIVNA

(1953)

23/05/2008

19.10.2007, Kramatorsk Court

480

29209/08

SHUTYAYEVA GALINA VALENTINOVNA

(1957)

28/05/2008

16.05.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

29219/08

SOBOLEVA SVETLANA VLADIMIROVNA

(1967)

28/05/2008

18.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

930

29234/08

KONOVAL GALINA IVANOVNA (1954)

28/05/2008

15.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

930

29238/08

KARAVAYEVA LYUBOV PETRIVNA

(1954)

28/05/2008

18.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

930

29243/08

MINAYEV ALEKSANDR NIKOLAYEVICH

(1956)

28/05/2008

01.07.2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

930

37452/08

PECHONKA IGOR VOLODYMYROVYCH

(1966)

11/07/2008

13.03.2007, Starokostyantyniv Court

645

39076/08

KOROTKIKH VLADIMIR ILLICH

(1953)

02/08/2008

13.08. 2003, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,290

39079/08

SIVAKOV ALEKSANDR MIKHAYLOVICH

(1957)

02/08/2008

31.05.2002, 13.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,515

39143/08

MOISEYENKO TATYANA PETROVNA

(1957)

08/08/2008

13.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

42876/08

KRAVTSEV OLEKSANDR ANATOLIYOVYCH

(1969)

26/08/2008

28.02. 2005, Bolgradsk Cour t

1,005

1812/09

GICHKO NADEZHDA VLADIMIROVNA

(1958)

02/12/2008

18.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

4526/09

TARASOVA SVETLANA LEONIDOVNA

(1958)

11/12/2008

16.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

4539/09

ARTYUKHOV ANATOLIY VASILYEVICH

(1982)

11/12/2008

25.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

4557/09

OSIN VITALIY ANATOLYEVICH

(1981)

11/12/2008

30.07.2003, 10.10. 2003, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,290

4574/09

OSINA NINA VASILYEVNA (1954)

11/12/2008

17.05. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

960

4581/09

GAVRUSHCHENKO NADEZHDA NIKOLAYEVNA (1949)

11/12/2008

29.02.2002, 16.06. 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,545

18543/09

VINOGRADOV NIKOLAY VIKTOROVICH

(1954)

17/03/2009

26.03. 2003, Krasnyy Luch Court

1,350

23388/09

FIRSOV GENNADIY VLADIMIROVICH

(1961)

21/04/2009

07 .07. 2004, Kerch Court

1,125

Menu

SHRAM AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

SHRAM AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

LEXI