European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHCHUKIN v Ukraine - 31527/06 [2010] ECHR 1598 (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1598.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1598

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31527/06
by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SHCHUKIN
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:

Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2006,

Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 April 2010 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 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Shchukin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Mariupol. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In June 1999 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the domestic courts against his former employer seeking compensation for damages.

Following two remittals of the case for a fresh examination, by the final decision of 5 September 2007, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, allowed in part the applicant's claim and awarded him certain amounts in compensation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about excessive length of the proceedings.

He also complained under the same provision about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings.

THE LAW

A. Length of the proceedings

The applicant complained about excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

By a letter dated 2 April 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to resolving the issue raised by this complaint. 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 civil procedure in the [applicant's] case.

I, Yuriy Yevgenovych Zaytsev, the Agent of the Government of Ukraine, declare that the Government of Ukraine are ready to pay Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Shchukin ex gratia the sum of 1,600 euros.

The Government of Ukraine therefore invite the Court to strike the application no. 31527/06 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.

This sum of 1,600 euros, which is to cover any pecuniary and non pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be 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”.

In a letter of 14 May 2005 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.

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 paragraph 1 (a)-(c) of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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.

To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those against Ukraine (see, among many other authorities, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 52-53, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 61-62, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, §§ 64-65, 1 February 2007), its practice concerning complaints about violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

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.

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).

Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.

B. Remainder of the application

Having carefully examined the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings, 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 it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's unilateral declaration in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant's case and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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 Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President