FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27071/08
Vasyl Saveliyovych MARTYNOVYCH
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 February 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 24 May 2008,
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 declaration and the applicant’s son’s reply thereon,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1927 and lived in Kyiv until his death in December 2009. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev and Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 4 April 2006 the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant certain amounts. The judgment became final but remains unenforced.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained about the violation of his property rights due to the lengthy non-enforcement of the above judgment.
THE LAW
On 13 September 2010 the Government submitted a declaration with a view to settling the case. By this declaration they acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicant’s judgment and declared that they were ready to pay him the outstanding debt under that judgment as well as the sum of 765 euros (EUR).
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 proposed sum was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that may be applicable and would 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.
By a letter of 12 January 2011 Mr Martynovych, the applicant’s son and heir, informed the Court of the applicant’s death in December 2009 and expressed in substance his agreement with the terms of the above declaration. This letter was not forwarded to the Government.
In the absence of the above information, the Government challenged the locus standi of Mr Martynovych, stating that he had not duly expressed his intention to pursue the application and that he had failed to show that he had been the late applicant’s only heir.
The Court notes that in the aforementioned letter Mr Martynovych expressed in substance his wish to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead. It further notes that no other heir was found. It thus concludes that Mr Martynovych has standing to pursue the present proceedings in his late father’s stead (see, mutatis mutandis, Alexandr Bulynko v. Ukraine, no. 9693/02, § 22, 21 June 2005).
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, within one year from the date on which the present judgment [became] final, 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 agreement of Mr Martynovych 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 on the terms of a settlement. 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
Decides that the applicant’s son, Mr Martynovych, has standing to pursue the present proceedings in his stead;
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