European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25726/07
Mykola Mykhaylovych GALINSKYY against Ukraine
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29 November 2011 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 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 Government’s declaration, as supplemented, and the applicants’ replies on it,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the attached table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev, of the Ministry of Justice.

On the dates set out in the attached table the national courts ordered the domestic authorities to pay various pecuniary amounts to the applicants. The judgments in the applicants’ favour 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

“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments.

The Government are ready to pay to the applicants the outstanding debts according to the judgments of the national authorities, as well as to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums in accordance with annex no. 1 to this declaration[¹].

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications 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 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”.

The applicants agreed with the terms of the declaration, even though some of them doubted that the Government would comply with it.

On 9 December 2010 the Government supplemented the declaration with the provision that the ex gratia sums would “be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement”.

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), (b) or (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, 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”.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. This settlement 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 (Article 37 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike them out of its list of cases.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX