Kolosay and Others v. Ukraine
Struck out of the list
Berörda konventionsartiklar
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 14570/07 by Nikolay Ivanovich KOLOSAY and 31 other applications against Ukraine (see annex for other applications)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 December 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 applications lodged on the dates specified in the table annexed below,
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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, the applicants’ replies to it and the Government’s letter of 9 December 2010 amending the aforesaid declaration,
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. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Yuriy Zaytsev , of the Ministry of Justice.
On the dates set out in the table annexed below the domestic courts held for the applicants and ordered the authorities 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.
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.
Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine pilot judgment cited above, in a letter dated 13 September 2010, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:
“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 judgements of the national authorities, as well as to pay the applicants ex gratia the sums in accordance with annex no. 1 to this declaration.
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.”
In reply, the applicants expressed their agreement with the terms of the Government’s declaration. The majority of the applicants cast doubts as to whether the Government would comply with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
On 9 December 2010 the Government sent a letter expressing their intent to amend the above declaration and to include 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 order to be able to effect the payment.
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 v. Ukraine , 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.”
In the light of the applicants’ agreement with the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that both Article 37 § 1 (b) and Article 37 § 1 (c) are relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This, in its view, is in line with the pilot judgment (ibid., § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications.
Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.
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 applicants’ comments thereon and the amendment to the aforesaid declaration;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX
No.
Appl. Number
Name(s) of the applicant(s), born in
Date of introduction
Domestic decisions about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain (name of the court or of another authority, date of the decision)
Compensation offered (euro)
1
14570/07
KOLOSAY
NIKOLAY IVANOVICH
1940
15/03/2007
1) 29.10.2004, Nova Kakhovka Court 2) 15.08.2003, Nova Kakhovka Court,
1,050
2
23636/08
KOMISARYK MARIYA IVANIVNA
1929
14/05/2008
06.02.2007, Zhmerinka Court
630
3
7380/09
PRYSHCHEPA
LYUBOV VOLODYMYRIVNA
1948
28/01/2009
03.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
4
7428/09
POLISHCHUK
IVAN PROPOKOVYCH
1942
28/01/2009
04.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
5
7433/09
FRANCHUK
IVAN IVANOVYCH
1946
28/01/2009
26.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
6
7435/09
BORYSYUK
ANATOLIY ROMANOVYCH
1937
29/01/2009
12.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
7
7468/09
MAZURASH OLEKSANDR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1960
29/01/2009
18.02.2008, Tetiyiv Court
450
8
8836/09
ABLAMSKA
KATERYNA YURIYIVNA
1950
04/02/2009
29.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
9
9814/09
SHAMRAY VOLODYMYR VASYLYOVYCH
1934
02/02/2009
28.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
10
9817/09
BANDURYST
LEONID PETROVYCH 1963
02/02/2009
10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
11
9823/09
NEKUSH OLEKSANDR PAVLOVYCH
1955
02/02/2009
12.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
12
10277/09
VIZNYAK LYUDMYLA VOLODYMYRIVNA
1957
09/02/2009
19.02.2008, Tetiyiv Court
450
13
10281/09
MAZURENKO VALENTYNA DMYTRIVNA
1953
10/02/2009
10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
14
12611/09
OVCHINNIKOV
YURIY MYKOLAYOVYCH
1957
24/02/2009
29.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
15
12653/09
POPRUGA
YURIY MYKOLAYOVYCH
1964
20/02/2009
06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
16
13002/09
KOBYLETSKA VALENTYNA STANISLAVIVNA
1935
25/02/2009
21.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
17
14285/09
STEPANYUK
ANATOLIY GRYGOROVYCH
1959
03/03/2009
30.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
18
16615/09
SHOSTOPAL VOLODYMYR STEPANOVYCH
1939
17/03/2009
06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
19
17941/09
SUKHATSKA
NADIYA MYKOLAYIVNA
1950
17/03/2009
26.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
20
21292/09
KHIRSA
ARKADIY GRYGOROVYCH
1966
30/03/2009
16.12.2002, Korosten Court
1,395
21
33618/09
MUDRENOK
YEVGENIY DMYTROVYCH
1956
12/06/2009
04.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
22
33660/09
MELNYK
VASYL FEDOROVYCH
1939
08/06/2009
16.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
23
36872/09
KAMINSKYY VOLODYMYR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1949
25/06/2009
11.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
24
38451/09
POVSTYANKO VOLODYMYR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1953
30/06/2009
1.) 13.09.2007, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 07.10.2008 2.) 15.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court, amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 20.01.2009 3.) 19.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 06.11.2008
345
25
44406/09
TESLENKO
VALERIY TYMOFIYOVYCH
1948
03/08/2009
1.) 01.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 04.12.2008 2.) 28.05.2008, Oleksandriyskyy Town District Court of Kirovograd Region
390
26
46267/09
ARKHYPOV
SERGIY MYKOLAYOVYCH
1961
18/08/2009
19.05.2008, Tetiyiv Court
405
27
48995/09
SKHAB
VOLODYMYR VASYLYOVYCH
1942
26/08/2009
28.05.2008, Tetiyiv Court
405
28
48999/09
KOSTENKO
NINA IVANIVNA
1940
27/08/2009
21.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
29
51351/09
CHOPYK
OLEKSANDR MYKHAYLOVYCH
1956
10/09/2009
10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
30
52705/09
SHANDURSKYY
PETRO ANTONOVYCH
1943
22/09/2009
06.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480
31
54561/09
ALEKSYEYEVA
MARIYA OLEKSIYIVNA
1945
01/10/2009
28.11.2007, Tetiyiv Court
495
32
55344/09
KRYUKOV
VALERIY MYKOLAYOVYCH
1963
08/10/2009
10.12.2007, Tetiyiv Court
480