FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 68049/13
Vitaliy Vasylyovych MAKARUK
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2013,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 January 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Vasylyovych Makaruk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Lutsk. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. A. Korenga, a lawyer practising in Lutsk.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of excessive length of his criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedy in respect of his grievances.

The application had been communicated to the Government.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the excessive length of his criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedy in respect of his grievances. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 12 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of consideration of the applicant’s case before the national courts and lack of effective domestic remedies.

The Government of Ukraine offer to pay Mr Vitaliy Vasylyovych Makaruk EUR 1,080 (one thousand and eighty euros).

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application 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 above sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applic