FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45131/06
Lyubov Mykolayivna TYCHENOK against Ukraine
and 10 other applications
(see table appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table attached below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev and Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
On various dates (see the table below) the national courts ordered the domestic authorities to pay various amounts to the applicants. Those judgments became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.
THE LAW
1. The Court considers that the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
2. On various dates (see the table below) the Government submitted several unilateral declarations with a view to settling the applicants’ cases. By these declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments and undertook to enforce the judgments that were still subject to enforcement and to pay the applicants various compensation 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 compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State[1] at the rate applicable on 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.
In reply, the applicants agreed with the declarations, even though some of them doubted that the Government would comply with their terms.
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)-(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 v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)), it required Ukraine to:
“grant adequate and sufficient redress [...] 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’ consent with the Government’s declarations, 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 cases. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declarations and the applicants’ replies thereto;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Table
No.
Application number,
applicant’s name
and date of birth
Date of introduction
Names of courts and dates of judgments about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain
Date of the declaration,
sums offered by the Government (in euros)
1.
45131/06
TYCHENOK,
Lyubov Mykolayivna, 1956
26 October 2006
Ovruch Court,
7 October 2005
13 September 2010,
870
2.
3590/10
KOLVAKH,
Larisa Petrovna, 1937
4 January 2010
Konotop Court,
28 November 2008
11 November 2011,
390
3.
5225/10
MUSIYENKO,
Vasyl Borysovych, 1956
12 January 2010
Tetiyiv Court,
11 December 2007
3 October 2011,
675
4.
13719/10
DEYNEKO,
Nikolay Ivanovich, 1964
12 February 2010
Konotop Court,
26 November 2007
11 November 2011,
630
5.
26009/10
ANDREYCHENKO,
Nikolay Andreyevich, 1955
21 April 2010
Konotop Court, 3 December 2008
(as amended on appeal on 11 March 2009)
11 November 2011,
480
6.
38268/10
DIKHTYARUK,
Ivan Mykhaylovych, 1956
30 June 2010
Tetiyiv Court,
4 February 2008
3 October 2011,
645
7.
42008/10
DEKHTYARENKO,
Igor Mykhaylovych, 1963
6 July 2010
Tetiyiv Court,
27 November 2007
3 October 2011,
675
8.
50799/10
ILYIN,
Vasyl Ivanovych, 1959
18 August 2010
Oleksandriya Court,
24 February 2009
30 September 2011,
345
9.
54721/10
BOYKO,
Ivan Semenovych, 1931
31 August 2010
Khmelnytskyy Court,
23 April 2008
11 November 2011,
540
10.
1265/11
PYZINA,
Galina Viktorovna, 1964
15 December 2010
Kostyantynivka Court,
9 October 2002
12 January 2012,
1,650
11.
2129/11
ZABLOTSKIY,
Viktor Nikolayevich, 1936
22 December 2010
Kostyantynivka Court,
29 July 2002
12 January 2012,
1,680
[1]. One of the declarations did not initially contain the currency conversion clause. Subsequently the Government amended it accordingly
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy