European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7680/07
Yuriy Petrovich KAZAKOV against Ukraine

and 7 other applications

(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 July 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates,

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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to them,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the table annexed below. Mr Bulavenko died on 2 March 2010 and Mrs Sofiya Yakymivna Bulavenko expressed her intent to pursue his application. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.

On the dates set out in the table annexed below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities to take certain actions or to pay various amounts to the applicants. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. Mr Kazakov also raised other complaints.

THE LAW

The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.

A.  Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour

By letters dated 30 July and 13 September 2010 the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declarations, signed on the same dates, with a view to settling the applicants’ complaints of non-enforcement similar to those addressed in the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine pilot judgment, cited above. The Government further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. By these declarations they acknowledged “the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments” and declared that they were “ready to pay 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 [the annexes to the declarations]” (see below). The remainder of the declarations 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[s] 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.”

On 9 December 2010 the Government expressed their intent to add the above declarations with the provision that the ex gratia sums “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 Government’s amended declarations.

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, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 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 reiterates 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 same judgment the Court also held that

“Proceedings in cases which [had] already been communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, but in which the Court [had] not yet decided on the merits, [would] be adjourned for [one year from the date on which this judgment became final]. ...

The decision to adjourn the above cases [would] be taken without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention.”

Although in their submissions the Government do not specifically mention the problem of lack of remedy, the Court notes that those submissions are made in the context of implementation of the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov judgment, therefore the Court concludes that the declarations are submitted with a view to settling the entirety of the applicants’ claims regarding non-enforcement.

In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This is in line with the pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the non-enforcement complaints.

Accordingly, the non-enforcement complaints should be struck out of the list.

B.  Remainder of the complaints

Having carefully examined the remainder of the complaints 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 it does 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 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 lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour, the supplement to it and the applicants’ comments 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 Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President