FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43025/04
by Aleksandr Frantsevich RINGIS
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Frantsevich Ringis, is a Ukrainian national residing in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region, Ukraine. He was represented by Mr Vladislav Nikolayevich Bychkovskiy from Miusinsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against the State Mining Company Almazna (ДП шахта „Алмазна”) for coal. On 24 July 2002 the court awarded the applicant 12,500 kilos of coal. On 10 September 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs’ Office (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
The applicant maintains that the court judgment in his favour has not been enforced.
On 9 February 2005 the Bailiffs’ Office informed the applicant that the debtor had been liquidated pursuant to the Fuel and Energy Ministry’s Order of 24 July 2001 (наказ Міністерства палива та енергетики України). The Bailiffs’ Office further notified the applicant that on 29 October 2002 it had transferred the writ of execution to the debtor’s liquidation commission for further processing. The parties did not provide any further information with regard to the enforcement proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour. He further complained about a violation of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
On 3 May 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Yuriy ZAYTSEV, Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay EUR 2,000 to Mr Aleksandr Frantsevich Ringis with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and it 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 sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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. [ ]”
On 21 June 2006 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant:
“I, Mr Aleksandr Frantsevich RINGIS, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay me the sum of EUR 2,000 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. [ ]”
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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy