FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 692/07
Leonid Borisovich KISELEV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 June 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 application lodged on 20 December 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Leonid Borisovich Kiselev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Torez.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 22 July 1998 the Torez Court ordered the Donetsk State Mine to pay the applicant certain amounts. The judgment became final but remains partially unenforced.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the above judgment.
THE LAW
On 19 December 2011 the Government submitted a friendly settlement proposal in respect of the case. By the proposal the Government undertook to fully enforce the applicant’s judgment and to pay him ex gratia sum of 2,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.
The above sum was 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 on 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.
In reply, the applicant expressed his agreement with the proposal.
In light of the above, the Court considers that the parties have reached a friendly settlement of the case. Therefore, the application should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy