Yuriy Kostyantynovych BARNASHOV v Ukraine - 25432/08 [2012] ECHR 89 (4 January 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 >> Yuriy Kostyantynovych BARNASHOV v Ukraine - 25432/08 [2012] ECHR 89 (4 January 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/89.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 89 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25432/08 Yuriy Kostyantynovych BARNASHOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 4 January 2012 as a Committee composed of: Boštjan M. Zupančič, President, Ann Power-Forde, Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Yuriy Kostyantynovych Barnashov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Rovenky. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice. On 15 August 2000 the applicant, who drove a motorbike with three passengers, had a traffic accident as a result of which several persons received bodily injuries. On 4 October 2000 the prosecutors instituted criminal investigations into the accident. On 6 February 2002 the applicant was accused of violating traffic regulations resulting in bodily injuries. After several reconsiderations of the case, on 2 June 2011 the Supreme Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant, no corpus delicti having been found in his actions. In 2006-2010 the applicant’s liberty was restricted by an obligation not to abscond. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case had been unreasonably long. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there were no effective domestic remedies in that respect. The applicant complained Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent was violated as the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive. He finally complained, without relying on any provision of the Convention, about the lengthy period during which he had been under the obligation not to abscond. THE LAW A. Length of proceedings complaint The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies in that respect. These provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 6 § 1 “ In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 “ Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” By a letter dated 18 February 2011, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues 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 authorities and the lack of a domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings in the applicant’s case. I, Valeria Lutkovska, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia 3,100 (three thousand one hundred) euros to Mr Yuriy Kostyantynovych Barnashov. 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 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 payment. 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. ” The applicant objected to the Government’s declaration. 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 (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 reiterates 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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in the light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the matter, 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. B. Remaining complaints Having carefully examined the remainder of the application in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does 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 criminal proceedings and the lack of domestic remedies in that respect; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/89.html