FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7757/12
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich LITVINYUK against Ukraine
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates stated in the annexed table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on the various dates stated in the annexed table requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicants mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings.
The applications were communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters sent on various dates (see the annexed table) the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the excessive duration of consideration of the applicants’ cases before the national courts. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the annexed table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The sums were to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. They would be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They were to be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. 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 the 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 cases.
By letters dated on various dates listed in the annexed table, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.
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 (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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 applications”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 39-52, 6 September 2005).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
2. The applicants also raised complaints under Articles 6, 10, 13 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the outcome and/or unfairness of the proceedings.
The Court has carefully examined the applications listed in the annexed table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in so far as they concern the length of proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Date of Government’s UD
Date of the applicant’s letter
Sum awarded
7757/12
19/01/2012
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich LITVINYUK
26/01/1950
Simferopol
Ukrainian
25/04/2013
08/06/2013
2,160 EUR
11128/12
15/02/2012
Tetyana Mykolayivna KHALIMANOVA
25/08/1958
Yevpatoriya
Ukrainian
12/07/2012
25/05/2013
900 EUR
11743/12
19/12/2011
Valeriy Adolfovych GOGIN
27/10/1962
Debaltseve
Ukrainian
15/01/2013
11/05/2013
450 EUR
23086/12
30/03/2012
Oleksandr Mykhaylovych BLIZNYUCHENKO
27/05/1951
Kyiv
Ukrainian
26/10/2012
31/12/2012
1,080 EUR
23214/12
12/04/2012
Volodymyr Yuriyovych MELNYK
23/02/1934
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna MELNYK
14/10/1984
Kyiv
Lyudmyla Fedorivna MELNYK
14/01/1961
Kyiv
08/05/2013
22/06/2013
1,620 EUR
jointly
27002/12
18/04/2012
Galina Valentinovna VLASOVA
07/07/1956
Simferopol
Ukrainian
08/05/2013
25/06/2013
1,080 EUR
27090/12
27/04/2012
Igor Borisovich BERLYAND
01/01/1947
Kharkiv
Ukrainian
19/10/2012
11/01/2013
1,080 EUR
28689/12
25/04/2012
Lyudmyla Vasylivna KYRYLTSEVA
28/04/1980
Khmelnytskyy
Ukrainian
08/05/2013
14/06/2013
2,070 EUR
33344/12
23/04/2012
Igor Ivanovych MELNYK
21/01/1966
Lviv
Ukrainian
08/05/2013
26/06/2013
1,080 EUR
33456/12
24/05/2012
Leonid Dmytrovych CHERNEY
28/05/1963
Chernivtsi
Ukrainian
08/05/2013
25/06/2013
1,620 EUR
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy