Valentina Rodionovna SUPRUNOVA v Ukraine - 29740/07 [2011] ECHR 1517 (20 September 2011)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Valentina Rodionovna SUPRUNOVA v Ukraine - 29740/07 [2011] ECHR 1517 (20 September 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1517.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1517 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29740/07 by Valentina Rodionovna SUPRUNOVA against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Committee composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Karel Jungwiert, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2007, Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 March 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Valentina Rodionovna Suprunova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In July 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts against her neighbour (Mrs K.) and the local authorities. She complained that Mrs K. had blocked the entrance to the common corridor leading to the applicant’s flat and that she had to use the back door as a result. She also asked the courts to annul the authorities’ decisions related to the title of Mrs K. to that corridor. On 11 June 2009 the local court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 2 December 2009 the Court of Appeal changed the above judgment, allowed the claim, quashed the authorities’ aforementioned decisions, declared the applicant’s right to use the corridor and ordered Mrs K. to unblock the entrance to it. On 24 March 2010, following the appeal in cassation lodged by Mrs K. the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 2 December 2009. According to the applicant, the judgment remains unenforced as Mrs K. refuses to comply with it. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in her case. She also complained under Articles 1, 6 § 1, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about and on account of the unfairness of the proceedings. Without invoking any provision of the Convention, the applicant further complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 2 December 2009. THE LAW A. The complaint about the length of the proceedings The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings in her case. The complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” By a letter dated 9 March 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the complaint. 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 ex gratia 1800 (one thousand eight hundred) euros to Valentina Rodionivna Suprunova. 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. The sum ex gratia , which 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”. In a letter of 22 April 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably 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 paragraph 1 (a)-(c) 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. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those against Ukraine (see, among many other authorities, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine , no. 70767/01, §§ 52-53, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine , no. 36545/02, §§ 61-62, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine , no. 39161/02, §§ 64-65, 1 February 2007), its practice concerning complaints about violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 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 by the Court, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. B. The remaining complaints Having carefully examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints , 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. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; 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/2011/1517.html