FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53565/07
Petr Stepanovich KHRISTOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Mark Villiger,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petr Stepanovich Khristov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Odessa. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In September 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his former employer in a labour dispute between them.
These proceedings ended with the final ruling of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, which on 6 June 2007, acting as a court of cassation, allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him certain amounts in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
In the course of the proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully requested the domestic courts to refer the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the labour legislation to the Constitutional Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
He also complained under the same provisions about the unfairness and unfavourable outcome of the proceedings, the courts’ bias and their refusal to refer the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the labour legislation to the Constitutional Court. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the outcome of the proceedings. Finally, he alleged a breach of Articles 1, 4, 14, 15 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. The complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
On 9 February 2011 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the complaint and requested the Court to strike the application out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration read as follows:
“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the consideration of the applicant’s case before the national courts.
I, Valeria Lutkovska, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia 900 (nine hundred) euros to Petro Stepanovych Khristov [[1]].
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 sum ex gratia is to cover any non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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 case”.
The applicant disagreed with the declaration stating that it had not covered his other complaints and requested the Court to continue the examination of the case.
The Court recalls 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 paragraph 1 (a), (b) or (c) of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.
It also recalls 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.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, for instance, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those against Ukraine (see, for instance, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 52-53, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 61-62, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, §§ 64-65, 1 February 2007), its practice concerning complaints about violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the compensation offered, which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases by the Court, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application.
The Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
2. Having carefully examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings;
Decides to strike the application 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 application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1]. The applicant’s first name and patronymic (Petro Stepanovych) are spelt in the declaration in the Ukrainian version of transliteration into English.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy