European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18247/09
DONBAS-2003, OOO
against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 December 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 application lodged on 2 March 2009,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant company, Donbas-2003, OOO (limited liability company), is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Lugansk. It was represented by Mr O. Bilokon, a lawyer practising in Donetsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of two domestic judgments given in its favour.

On 14 July and 5 August 2011 the parties submitted friendly settlement declarations, under which the applicant company agreed to waive any further claims in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against the Government’s undertaking to enforce the above judgments, which would constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government undertook to enforce the judgments 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 the judgment debts within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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.

THE LAW

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 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 Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President