FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43900/09
Vasyl Yosypovych ROMANYUTA
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 July 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasyl Yosypovych Romanyuta, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava. He was represented before the Court by Mr O. V. Khrapach, a lawyer practising in Poltava. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
In 1998 the applicant was placed on a waiting list to receive a flat to be provided by his employer. In 1999 he was excluded from the list by an employer’s decision. In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the employer, seeking to annul the decision about the exclusion, which ended with a decision of the Supreme Court of 20 May 2009.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length and the outcome of the proceedings. He also in substance complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unlawfully deprived of his entitlement to the flat. Lastly, the applicant made a reference to Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, complaining that he had been deprived of the right to an effective remedy by competent national tribunals for acts violating his rights.
THE LAW
1. By letter dated 28 February 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application in respect of the complaint communicated to them about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the consideration of the applicant’s case before the national courts.
I, Valeria Lutkovska, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia 1,300 (one thousand three hundred) Euros
to Mr Vasyl Yosypovych Romanyuta.
The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present 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 sum ex gratia is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
In a letter of 5 April 2011 the applicant objected to the Government’s declaration.
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 application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 39-52, 6 September 2005; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 52-61, 21 December 2006).
The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began in April 2002 and ended on 20 May 2009, thus lasting around seven years for three levels of jurisdiction.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
2. Having carefully examined the remainder of the application 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 this part of the application is 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
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy