European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15060/06
Olena Vasylivna POLTORAK against Ukraine
and 4 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,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates specified in the attached appendix,

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’ reply, if any, to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applications were lodged by five Ukrainian nationals whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are tabulated below in the appendix.

The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicants mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the court proceedings in their cases. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints.

THE LAW

1.  Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.

2.  By letters, the dates of which are specified in the attached appendix, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declarations, with a view to settling the length of proceedings’ issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declarations provided as follows:

“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the consideration of the [applicants’ cases] before the national courts.

I, Valeria Lutkovska, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia [the sums specified in the appendix].

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the [applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present [declarations] might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the [cases] 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, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. [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.

[These payments] will constitute the final resolution of the [cases].”

The applicants, besides Mr Nykytyuk who did not provide any comments, objected to the Government’s declaration considering the proposed sums too 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 (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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, for example, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Spółka z o.o. Waza v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).

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; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; 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).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in the 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 declarations in respect of the excessive length of the national court proceedings in the applicants’ cases;

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 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX