FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43478/07
Valeriy Yevgenyevich YERILOV
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 December 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 September 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valeriy Yevgenyevich Yerilov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Pryluky.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
In August 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant for his failure to comply with a judicial decision. In October 2011 the prosecution authorities dropped the charge having found no indication of a criminal offence in the applicant’s actions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. This complaint was communicated to the Government. He also complained about the alleged unfairness of these proceedings.
THE LAW
1. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letter dated 10 September 2012 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. 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 that domestic authorities have allowed excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
I, Nazar Kulchytskyy, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine are ready to pay Mr Valeriy Yevgenyevich Yerilov the just satisfaction in the amount of EUR 500.
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 of EUR 500, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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.”
By a letter received on 15 October 2012, 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 August 2005 and ended in October 2011, thus lasting more than six 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application can be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
2. In so far as the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, the Court notes that those proceedings had eventually been discontinued on the grounds that there was no corpus delicti in his actions.
The Court has held in its case-law that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, took place in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see, for example, Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey, (dec.), no. 38370/02, 25 August 2005, and I.I. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44082/98, 25 March 2004).
In the light of the foregoing the Court concludes that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 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 proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases 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 PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy