Svetlana Petrovna GANCHUK v Ukraine - 8428/07 [2012] ECHR 658 (27 March 2012)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Svetlana Petrovna GANCHUK v Ukraine - 8428/07 [2012] ECHR 658 (27 March 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/658.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 658 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8428/07 Svetlana Petrovna GANCHUK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Committee composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Svetlana Petrovna Ganchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kyiv. On 12 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Svyatoshynskyy Court”) seeking the ascertainment of a fact that her husband had died in a work related accident and claiming damages from his employer. The Svyatoshynskyy Court examined the claim three times, following two remittals of the case back to it by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (sitting in a three-judge panel). Its third decision, of 1 August 2005, was upheld by the appellate court on 16 November 2005. On 2 June 2006 the Supreme Court completed the proceedings with a final ruling rejecting the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. In August 2006 the above ruling was served on the applicant. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice. COMPLAINTS The applicant mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. She also complained under this provision that the same judge had sat twice in the appellate court ’s panel dealing with her case, and that this had happened on two occasions. She also referred to Article 13 of the Convention complaining about the unfavourable for her outcome of the domestic proceedings. Lastly, the applicant complained about the alleged infringement of her rights under Articles 5 and 11 of the Accident Compensation Convention. THE LAW By letter dated 31 August 2011, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “ The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the consideration of the applicant’s case 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 3,400 (three thousand four hundred) euros to Ms Svetlana Petrovna Ganchuk. The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application 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. This sum is to cover any 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. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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 case.” The applicant objected to the Government’s declaration. 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. 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; 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). The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 12 January 1998 and ended in August 2006, when the applicant was served with the final decision of 2 June 2006 (see Widmann v. Austria , no. 42032/98, § 29, 19 June 2003, and Gitskaylo v. Ukraine , no. 17026/05, § 34, 14 February 2008). It thus lasted around eight years seven months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in 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 application in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c). Having carefully examined the remainder of the application in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is 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 Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/658.html