FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27033/05
Yelena Aleksandrovna MARUTSENKO against Ukraine
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
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 applications lodged on various dates,
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 unilateral declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the amendments to one of those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Yuriy Zaytsev and Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On the dates set out in the table below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to pay them various pecuniary amounts. The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of them also raised other complaints.
THE LAW
1. At the outset, the Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
2. Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment cited above, on 13 September and 9 December 2010 the Government submitted two unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the issues raised by the applicants. By these declarations the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments, expressed their willingness to pay the applicants the outstanding debts according to those judgements and offered them various sums (for the sums, see the table below).
The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declarations 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 declarations also provided that the sums were 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. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them 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 cases.
As the declaration of 13 September 2010 did not initially contain the currency conversion provision, the Government subsequently amended it accordingly.
The applicants disagreed with the declarations and/or the amendments to one of them on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases.
The Court reiterates that it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under Article 37 § 1 (a)-(c) of the Convention. In particular, under Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court may 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 application.
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 also reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court reiterates that in the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment cited above it ordered Ukraine to
“grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants whose applications pending before the Court were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court before the delivery of the present judgment or will be communicated further to this judgment and concern arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible, including where complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised”.
In the same judgment the Court also held that
“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases in which the applicants raise arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non‑enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State is responsible, including cases in which complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non‑enforcement are also raised, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare any such case inadmissible or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention”.
Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations and the amendments to one of them, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, §§ 82 and 99 and point 6 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledged the excessive duration of the execution of judgments in the applicants’ favour. It also notes that the sums offered by the Government are comparable with the Court’s awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delays in each particular case.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the applications. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.
2. Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these parts of the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 and the amendments to one of them in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
No.
Application number,
applicant’s name
and date of birth
Date of introduction
Domestic judgments about the delayed enforcement of which the applicants complain
(dates and the courts’ names)
Sums offered by the Government
(in euros)
1.
27033/05
MARUTSENKO,
Yelena Aleksandrovna, 1966
24 June 2005
4 June 2003,
Kirovograd Court
1,290
2.
24970/06
BORISENKO,
Yuriy Nikolayevich, 1964
24 June 2005
26 December 2003,
Kirovograd Court
1,200
3.
24975/06
KATENEV,
Nikolay Ilyich, 1952
24 June 2005
26 December 2003,
Kirovograd Court
705
4.
37542/06
PALYVODA,
Tetyana Mykhaylivna, 1950
30 August 2006
8 April 2005,
Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovograd (as amended on 29 June 2005)
945
5.
31272/07
MANSUROV,
Valentin Gamirovich, 1940
11 July 2007
25 April and 24 July 2003,
Novogrodivka Court
1,335
6.
1614/08
YERYGIN,
Aleksey Petrovich, 1938
25 December 2007
28 April 2004,
Krasnyy Luch Court
1,155
7.
11738/08
ULYANOV,
Dmitriy Georgiyevich, 1937
8 February 2008
30 March 2005,
Saki Court
975
8.
11774/08
KOROLEKH,
Galina Grigoryevna, 1941
21 February 2008
14 November 2002,
Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv
1,140
9.
12471/08
DANYLCHENKO,
Inna Oleksiyivna, 1973
26 February 2008
6 April 2007,
Kolomak Court
480
10.
52156/08
MILKINA,
Valentyna Andriyivna, 1939
22 September 2008
15 October 2007,
Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
510
11.
18406/09
NADEYEVA,
Yevgeniya Ivanovna, 1947
27 March 2009
6 August 2004 and 31 January 2006, Kerch Court
1,110
12.
40666/09
ANTONOVA,
Lyubov Aleksandrovna, 1952
21 July 2009
4 December 2002 and 11 May 2005, Krasnyy Luch Court
1,395
Table
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy