FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52730/09
by OLIMPEKS
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations of a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by “Olimpeks”, a Ukrainian company with its seat in Dnipropetrovsk. It was represented before the Court by Mr Viktor Slyvnyy, a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
On 11 February 2010 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint made in substance under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in its favour on 26 February 2007.
On 5 August 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay it the debt of UAH 16,559,969.59 owed under the judgment of 26 February 2007. This sum 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 simple 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy