FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7553/05
by Sergey Trofimovich KROLIKOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 February 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Trofimovich Krolikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Peresechnoye, the Kharkov Region. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 March 2000 the Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the State Company “Remontno-Mekhanichnyi Zavod”, where the applicant worked. The applicant was represented by Mr M. in these proceedings.
In the course of these proceedings, on 12 October 2004, the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (the Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration before July 2001) ordered the bankruptcy trustee to inform all the creditors about the debtor’s financial rehabilitation and to provide them with the documents concerning the payment of salary arrears.
According to the applicant, the labour disputes commission of the debtor company adopted various decisions between 2000 and 2003, by which it was ordered to pay the applicant salary arrears and which were enforced in 2004. The applicant provided no further information in this respect.
By its decision of 2 March 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court ordered the company to pay the applicant 7,598.09 UAH in salary arrears. In 2005 the Lysychansk Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above decision due to the debtor company’s lack of funds.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of the Lysychansk Town Court of 2 March 2005 and of the decision of the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court of 12 October 2004, and about the delay in the enforcement of numerous other unspecified decisions, allegedly given between 2000 and 2003 against the debtor company. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
He further complained that he did not have effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
He also complained about violations of Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention on account of the above non-enforcement. The applicant finally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged inability of Mr M. to represent effectively the applicant before the courts and other State authorities.
THE LAW
On 27 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant:
“I, Sergey Trofimovich Krolikov, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay me debt according to the judgement of the Lysychansk Town Court of 2 March 2005 still owed to me, as well as to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
The sum of EUR 500 (five hundred euros), 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 applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 15 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Yuriy Zaytsev, Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay the debt according to the judgment of the Lysychansk Town Court of 2 March 2005 still owed to Mr Sergey Trofimovich Krolikov, as well as to pay him ex gratia EUR 500 (five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
The sum of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) 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 applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court 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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy