by Volodymyr SKYDAN
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 July 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
Stanislav Shevchuk, ad hoc judge,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Skydan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Radomyshl. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.
On 20 November 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Radomyshl Court of 21 May 2001 and the additional judgment of the same court of 18 September 2001.
On 15 and 18 May 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to execute the judgment of the Radomyshl Court of 21 May 2001 and its additional judgment of 18 September 2001 and to pay the applicant 2,500 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Ukrainian hryvnas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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 would constitute the 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President