[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Iryna Mykhaylivna ZHIAKOVA v Ukraine - 32707/05 [2011] ECHR 1203 (5 July 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1203.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1203

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32707/05

Iryna Mykhaylivna ZHIAKOVA against Ukraine
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 July 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 the dates specified in the table annexed below,

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 and the applicants’ replies to it,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the table annexed below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.

On the dates set out in the table annexed below the domestic courts 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 applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour.

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.

Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine pilot judgment cited above, in a letter dated 8 December 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided 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.”

In reply, the applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the Government’s declaration. Some applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government would comply with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

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, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 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 reiterates that in its pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, cited above) it required Ukraine to

“grant adequate and sufficient redress, within one year 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 same judgment the Court also held that

“Proceedings in cases which [had] already been communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, but in which the Court [had] not yet decided on the merits, [would] be adjourned for [one year from the date on which this judgment became final]. ...

The decision to adjourn the above cases [would] be taken without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case 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.”

In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This, in its view, is in line with the pilot judgment (ibid., § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and it finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications.

Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.

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 lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour 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

ANNEX