Zinayida Oleksiyivna POPOVA v Ukraine - 24715/08 [2010] ECHR 2152 (14 December 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zinayida Oleksiyivna POPOVA v Ukraine - 24715/08 [2010] ECHR 2152 (14 December 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2152.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2152 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24715/08 by Zinayida Oleksiyivna POPOVA and 14 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 , D eputy 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 on 28 May 2010 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants' replies to it, Having regard to the Court’s decision of 30 November 2010 in the cases and the Government’s request to restore the cases to the list in order to effect a number of technical amendments, 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 Mrs V. Lutkovska, Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine. 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 and, in certain cases, of assorted faults that allegedly accompanied the judicial or enforcement proceedings. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints. 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. A. Complaints concerning lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour Following the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine pilot judgment cited above, in a letter dated 28 May 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 the annex 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 mentioned in the annex 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. 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 this part of the applications. Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list. B. Remainder of the complaints Having carefully examined the remainder of the applicants' complaints 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 applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to restore the cases to its list of cases; 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 declaration; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) and (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. 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) 24715/08 POPOVA ZINAYIDA OLEKSIYIVNA 14/05/2008 18.09.2006, Oleksandriyskyy Court 2 27612/08 SIDOROV VIKTOR YEGOROVICH 28/05/2008 24.05.07 Feodosiya Court 3 30546/08 KHOLODNA YELIZAVETA YEGOROVNA 13/06/2008 18.09.2003 Desnyanskyy Distrit Court of Chernigiv 1,200 50064/08 BARANOVSKYY VOLODYMYR MYKHAYLOVYCH 25/09/2008 17.08.2005, Ovruch Court 5 18354/09 VYGOVSKYY IGOR VITALIYOVYCH 23/03/2009 01.11.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 6 39546/09 STARSHOV ANATOLIY MYKHAYLOVYCH 08/07/2009 1.) 16.10.2007, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 07.10.2008 2.) 19.03.2008 Oleksandriya Court 7 45357/09 OSHERENKO OLEKSANDR VOLODYMYROVYCH 28/07/2009 28.01.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 25.09.2008. 8 45758/09 BUDNYK ANATOLIY MIKHAYLOVICH 14/08/2009 15.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court 9 46168/09 SOKOLOV STANISLAV VOLODYMYROVYCH 05/08/2009 10.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court 10 46519/09 DEYNEGA VOLODYMYR MYKOLAYOVYCH 13/08/2009 10.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 10.12.2008. 11 46982/09 YAKOVLEV PETRO IVANOVYCH 11/08/2009 10.07.2008, Oleksandriya Court 12 49028/09 GAVRYLOV PETRO YEGOROVYCH 25/08/2009 11.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court 13 50723/09 KORDELYUK GRYGORIY MYKOLAYOVYCH 10/03/2009 28.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 20.01.2009. 14 51326/09 TREGUBENKO IVAN DMYTROVYCH 09/09/2009 11.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 10.12.2008. 15 53019/09 MYRONYUK OLEKSIY IVANOVYCH 24/09/2009 29.05.2007, Bilgorod-Dnistrovskyy Court BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2152.html