FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25192/06
Vera Fedoseyevna KLEMENTYEVA
and Aleksandr Valentinovich KLEMENTYEV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2006,
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 respondent Government’s unilateral declaration and the applicants’ reply thereon,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged on 14 June 2006 by two Ukrainian nationals, Mrs Vera Fedoseyevna Klementyeva (“the first applicant”) and Mr Aleksandr Valentinovich Klementyev (“the second applicant”), who were born, respectively, in 1928 and 1950. The second applicant lives in the Kherson Region. The first applicant died on 22 March 2007 and the second applicant, her son and heir, expressed in substance his wish to pursue her part of the application.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
By the judgment of 14 October 2004, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, on appeal, ordered the local communal enterprise to pay the applicants certain pecuniary amounts. The judgment remains unenforced.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the above judgment.
THE LAW
1. From the outset, the Court notes that it was not disputed by the parties that the second applicant is entitled to pursue the first applicant’s part of the application. Nor does the Court see any reason to hold otherwise. However, reference will still be made to both applicants throughout the ensuing text.
2. On 25 June 2011 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to settling the applicants’ case. By this declaration they acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgment and declared that they were ready to pay them the outstanding debt under that judgement as well as 1,200 euros.
The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggested that the 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 of 1,200 euros was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. It would 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 undertook 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.
The applicants agreed with the terms of the 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 in its paragraph 1 (a)-(c). 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 recalls that in its pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above) it required Ukraine to:
“grant adequate and sufficient redress [...] to all applicants [...] whose complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions [had] been communicated to the respondent Government”.
In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the case. This is also in line with the pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the case. Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and the applicants’ reply thereon;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy