FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 13 January 2012
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Application no. 38755/04
Larisa Anatolyevna SENATOVA against Ukraine
and 32 other applications
(see table attached)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 November 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 the dates specified in the attached table,
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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, the Government’s letter amending the aforementioned declaration and the applicants’ replies thereon,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the attached table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev and Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
On the dates set out in the attached table the domestic courts delivered judgments in the applicants’ favour and ordered the domestic authorities to take certain actions or to pay various pecuniary amounts to the applicants. The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final (except for the judgment of 12 March 2007 in the application no. 28391/08; see table below) but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints.
THE LAW
1. 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. By a letter dated 13 September 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to settling the applicants’ non-enforcement complaints. By this declaration the Government acknowledged “the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments” and declared that they were “ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding debts according to the judgements of the national authorities, as well as to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums in accordance with annex no. 1 to the declaration” (for the sums, see table below). The remainder of the declaration read as follows:
“The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications 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 sums ex gratia are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the cases.”
By a letter dated 9 December 2010, the Government supplemented the above declaration with the provision that the ex gratia sums would “be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement”. In reply, the applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the amended declaration.
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 paragraph 1 (a), (b) or (c) of that Article. 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 applicants’ agreement 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 terms for settling the cases. 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 non-enforcement complaints. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.
3. Having carefully examined the remainder of the complaints raised by some of the applicants in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is 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 complaints 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 declaration in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour, the supplement to it and the applicants’ replies thereon;
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 (b) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
ANNEX
No.
Application number,
applicant’s name
and date of birth
Date of introduction
Domestic judgments about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain
(date of the judgment and the court’s name)
Compensation offered by the Government
(in euros)
Remarks
1.
38755/04
SENATOVA,
Larisa Anatolyevna, 1964
19 October 2004
20 January 2000, 28 August 2001, 25 April 2002 and 24 April 2003, Nova Kakhovka Court
1,920
-
2.
4841/05
1). SOLOMATIN,
Vasyl Mykolayovych, 1951, and
2). SOLOMATINA,
Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna, 1948
19 January 2005
1). 18 November 2002, Tsentralno-Miskyy Court of Gorlivka
2). 20 November 2002, Tsentralno-Miskyy Court of Gorlivka
1). 1,380
2). 630
-
3.
12819/06
GAYDASH,
Eduard Mykolayovych, 1969
24 March 2006
11 May 2005, Lutsk District Court
945
-
4.
31698/06
PAVLOVA,
Valentyna Vasylivna, 1938
22 July 2006
18 November 2002, Kryukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk
1,005
-
5.
31934/06
DROZD,
Tamara Ivanivna, 1950
11 July 2006
22 November 2004, Oleksandriya District Court
1,035
-
6.
38548/07
ALEKSYUK,
Vladimir Mikhaylovich, 1955
22 August 2007
21 November 2006, Krasnyy Luch Court
675
-
7.
38656/07
GONCHARENKO,
Igor Dmitriyevich, 1962
22 August 2007
4 August 2006, Krasnyy Luch Court
735
-
8.
47034/07
MYKOLAYCHUK,
Valeriy Leontiyovych, 1960
18 November 2007
24 April 2003, Korostyshivskyy District Court of Zhytomyr
1,185
-
9.
47081/07
TERTYSHNYY,
Sergiy Mykhaylovych, 1961
18 October 2007
8 January 2002, Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv
1,350
-
10.
48263/07
CHACHARSKA,
Olga Yuriyivna, 1956
26 October 2007
11 June 2002, Kyiv Garrison District Court
1,455
-
11.
56454/07
YAVDOKHIN,
Viktor Grigoryevich, 1956
1 December 2007
5 December 2005, Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig
750
-
12.
12020/08
SAVCHUK,
Lidiya Stepanivna, 1922
21 February 2008
10 May 2007, Vinnytsya District Court
585
-
13.
15565/08
PROVOTAR,
Galyna Pavlivna, 1960
12 March 2008
7 October 2005, Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv
870
-
14.
28391/08
SAFYANNIKOV,
Igor Viktorovich, 1951
3 June 2008
12 March and 19 September 2007, Konotop District Court
525
Judgment of 12 March 2007 was quashed on 27 June 2007
15.
31547/08
DRYGIN,
Valentin Pavlovich, 1938
18 June 2008
26 January 2005, Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv
885
-
16.
48172/08
RUDYUK,
Mykhaylo Grygorovych, 1954
25 September 2008
12 October 2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
510
-
17.
1256/09
BIGOTSKYY,
Vasyl Matviyovych, 1933
15 December 2008
18 October 2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
510
-
18.
8196/09
KONDRATYUK,
Yuriy Mykhaylovych[1], 1954
29 January 2009
24 January 2008, Tetiyiv Court
465
-
19.
10380/09
DYOMIN,
Mykola Fedorovych, 1951
3 February 2009
27 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
-
20.
10401/09
SIRENKO,
Volodymyr Volodymyrovych, 1959
3 February 2009
20 February 2008, Tetiyiv Court
450
-
21.
10403/09
PIZNYUR,
Mykola Vitaliyovych, 1971
6 February 2009
22 January 2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
465
-
22.
10416/09
PRISETSKYY,
Volodymyr Mykolayovych, 1957
6 February 2009
17 December 2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
-
23.
10426/09
PETRENKO,
Petro Panasovych, 1939
2 February 2009
26 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
-
24.
10436/09
MYTROSHYNA,
Valentyna Mukolayivna, 1949
11 February 2009
29 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
-
25.
11224/09
LAPCHENKO,
Volodymyr Mykolayovych, 1962
14 February 2009
4 May 2006, Kovpakivskyy District Court of Sumy
765
-
26.
11228/09
ZARAYSKIY,
Leonid Anatolyevich, 1961
7 February 2009
5 October 2006, Lysychansk Court
690
-
27.
14032/09
BILYK,
Mykola Ivanovych, 1955
18 February 2009
26 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
-
28.
14870/09
TURIK,
Oleksiy Vasylyovych, 1957
4 March 2009
7 August 2006, Oleksandriya Court
720
-
29.
15682/09
KOKOYDA,
Olga Ivanivna, 1950
6 March 2009
20 November 2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
-
30.
15688/09
BURLAKA,
Mykhaylo Vasylyovych, 1960
6 March 2009
29 January 2008, Tetiyiv Court
465
-
31.
17255/09
DAVYDOVYCH,
Bronislava Stanislavovna, 1923
24 March 2009
8 April 2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
420
In 2010 the applicant died, her daughters and heirs Ms Binkovska and Ms Didkivska having expressed their wish to pursue the application
32.
27553/09
KOTYUK,
Mykhaylo Vasylyovych, 1949
12 May 2009
29 January, 1 April and 19 May 2008, Oleksandriya Court
390
-
33.
41665/09
YAKOBCHUK,
Rostyslava Ivanivna, 1940
24 July 2009
18 March 2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court
435
-
[1]. Rectified on 13 January 2012: the patronymic was “Mykolayovych”.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy