FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18662/06
Lyudmila Alekseyevna BUKOVA against Ukraine
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 November 2012 as a committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications lodged on the dates specified in the annexed table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the annexed table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
On the dates set out in the annexed table domestic courts delivered judgments according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to take certain actions in their favour. The judgments became enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the judgments in due time because of the authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary or regulatory measures, or because of the bailiffs’ omissions.
Relying on various provisions of the Convention, the applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention.
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. The Government submitted several unilateral declarations with a view to settling the applicants’ cases. By the declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments and declared that they were ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding judgement debts and the compensation sums specified in the annexed table. The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases pursuant to 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, would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 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.
The applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the Government’s declarations, though some of them questioned the Government’s compliance.
The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications.
In light of the above the Court considers that the parties have actually reached a friendly settlement concerning the applications. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. Therefore, they should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention which is relevant in the present cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no. and date of introduction
Applicant’s name, date of birth
(if known)
Domestic judgments about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (date of the judgment and name of the court)
Date of the Government’s
unilateral declaration
Compensation offered by the Government (in euros)
18662/06
26/04/2006
Lyudmila Alekseyevna BUKOVA
19/01/1947
27 October 1997,
Kramatorsk Court
10 May 2012
2,415
489/08
10/12/2007
Mariya Stepanovna ZUBANOVA
01/01/1942
13 October 2003 and 28 January 2004,
Torez Court
10 May 2012
1,530
8553/08
25/01/2008
Raisa Ivanovna YERYGINA
02/04/1941
8 April 2004,
Krasnyy Luch Court
30 May 2012
1,440
5681/09
20/01/2009
Liliya Vladimirovna YANCHUKOVA
20/09/1975
19 April 2006,
Torez Court
10 May 2012
1,080
17932/09
18/03/2009
Nadiya Andriyivna KOLESNYK
1952
29 November 2007,
Tetiyv Court
1 June 2012
810
2506/10
11/12/2009
Marfa Kupriyanivna SHEVCHUK
12/08/1931
8 April 2009,
Bershady Court
5 April 2012
525
14110/10
25/02/2010
Vasyl Vasylyovych BEGAL
11/01/1966
22 November 2006,
Gorodok Court
5 April 2012
945
30627/10
21/05/2010
Grygoriy Ivanovych PYSAREVYCH
28/10/1946
11 November 2004,
Chervonograd Court
1 June 2012
1,350
37683/10
21/06/2010
Antonina Ivanovna KOLOSOVA
04/12/1962
29 May 2007,
Yevapatoriya Court
11 May 2012
780
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy