FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23715/06
Nikolay Timofeyevich BULAVKA against Ukraine
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 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 annexed table,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
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 various dates the domestic courts delivered judgments in the applicants’ cases and ordered the domestic authorities to pay them certain amounts. The judgments became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
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 may 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 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.”
In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is relevant in the present cases. This is in line with the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify the continued examination.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declarations 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 PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application
number
Applicant’s name, year 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)
Date of the Government’s
unilateral declaration
Compensation offered by the Government (euro)
23715/06
Nikolay Timofeyevich BULAVKA,
1952
20/05/2006
13 May 2005,
Donetsk Military Harrison Court
10 April 2012
630
4766/08
Nataliya Aleksandrovna TITARENKO,
1978
24/12/2007
16 June 2005,
Krasnyy Luch Court
10 April 2012
1,215
4799/08
Gennadiy Aleksandrovich TITARENKO,
1955
24/12/2007
21 June 2005,
Krasnyy Luch Court
10 April 2012
1,200
24352/08
Aleksandr Yakovlevich DYADKO,
1947
30/04/2008
14 June 2001, Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv and 23 August 2006,
Lysychansk Court
3 April 2012
1,935
19046/10
Boris Nikolayevich ZORIY,
1978
16/03/2010
17 July 2008,
Krasnyy Luch Court
19 April 2012
315
28857/10
Vasiliy Vasilyevich KRUPINA,
1962
19/04/2010
9 February 2009,
Konotop Court
28 March 2012
555
37623/10
Aleksandr Leonidovich KOLOSOV,
1961
21/06/2010
6 November 2006,
Yevpatoriya Court
9 April 2012
960
44263/10
Lina Stanislavivna ZADERNIVSKA,
1950
13/07/2010
11 October and 2 July 2007,
Nova Kakhovka Court
28 March 2012
795
51014/10
Pavel Gavrilovich LYSENKO,
1930
28/08/2010
8 November 2004,
Shakhtask Court
3 February 2012
1,170
59276/10
Kateryna Petrivna KALYUZHNA,
1950
29/09/2010
23 May 2005,
Oleksandriya Court
9 April 2012
855
61013/10
Igor Ivanovych SOKYRKA,
1965
23/09/2010
16 April 2008,
Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal
28 March 2012
705
64705/10
Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych ANDRYUSHCHENKO,
1955
21/10/2010
28 August 2009,
Kompaniyvka Court
9 April 2012
435
2047/11
Volodymyr Leonidovych GRYGORYEV,
1942
28/12/2010
30 October 2007,
Zhytomyr Regional Administrative Court
9 April 2012
780
4425/11
Maksym Mykolayovych MARTYNYUK,
1969
05/01/2011
17 December 2007,
Zhytomyr Regional Administrative Court
9 April 2012
765
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy