FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44404/07 by Sergey Vladimirovich ORLOV
and 43 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 various dates,
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 and the applicant’s 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 46 Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On the dates set out in the annexed table below the national courts, holding in favour of the applicants, ordered the authorities to take certain measures or 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 pilot judgment cited above, in May 2010 the Government submitted to the Court the unilateral declaration aimed at resolving the issue raised by the applications. They requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration read 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.”
A majority of the applicants disagreed on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Certain others failed to reply.
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 under Article 37 of the Convention it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under (a), (b), or (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.”
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 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 objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court reiterates that in its pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, cited above) it recently ordered Ukraine to
“grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants whose applications pending before the Court were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court before the delivery of the present judgment or will be communicated further to this judgment and concern arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible, including where complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised;.”
In the same judgment the Court also held that
“pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases in which the applicants raise arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State is responsible, including cases in which complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised, without prejudice to the Court's power at any moment to declare any such case inadmissible 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.”
Having examined the terms of the Government's declaration, the Court understands it as intending to give the applicants redress in line with the pilot judgment (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 82 and 99 and point 6 of the operative part).
The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledge the excessive length of the execution of judgments in the applicants' favour. It also notes that the compensations that the Government offered are comparable with Court awards in similar cases, taking account, inter alia, of the specific delay(s) in each particular case.
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the applications. It is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the applications.
Accordingly, the relevant parts of the applications which concern the applicants' complaints of the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour 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 these parts of the applications are 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 excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments in the applicants' favour, as amended;
Decides to strike the applications 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	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.		44404/07	ORLOV SERGEY VLADIMIROVICH
1958 	03/10/2007	22.09.2006, Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol	315	
2.		762/08	GUZHOVSKYY VIKTOR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1965 	27/11/2007	26.09.2005, Ichnya District Court of Chernigiv Region	825	
3.		13353/08	SMYK PAVLO DMYTROVYCH
1961	31/01/2008	20.05.2002, Chervonograd Court 	1,440	
4.		15827/08	BUZYNSKA NADIYA IGNATIVNA
1929	19/03/2008	04.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	435	
5.		19594/08	KAVUN RAYISA IVANIVNA
1926	23/02/2008	28.04.2006 Tokmak court	750	
6.		19757/08	ZHYZHKA GRYGORIY IVANOVYCH
1956	15/04/2008	18.08.2005, Kyiv Court of Appeal	390	
7.		23210/08	KOLVAKH KONSTANTUN ALEKSEYEVICH
1958	06/05/2008	20.09.2007, Konotop Court	480	
8.		23719/08	BATLUK VLADIMIR IVANOVICH
1949	05/05/2008	29.11.2007, Konotop Court	450	
9.		25561/08	KOVALENKO VLADIMIR IVANOVICH
1965	20/05/2008	29.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
10.		26066/08	TERNYUK VIKTOR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1966
	20/05/2008	27.06.06, Starokonstjantynivskyy District Court of Khmelnytsky Region	690	
11.		27800/08	SAYEVSKAYA MARIYA NIKOLAYEVNA
1955	04/06/2008	2.10.2007, Konotop Court 	480	
12.		30738/08	GUSKOV OLEKSANDR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1959	17/06/2008	31.03.03, Yavorivsky District Court of Lviv Region 	1,290	
13.		31678/08	DUDAREV VITALIY SERAFIMOVICH
1932	17/06/2008	06.11.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
14.		31679/08	KRAPIVA ALLA ANDREYEVNA
1925	18/06/2008	22.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
15.		32528/08	ZHURAVLYOVA VARVARA ALFIMOVNA
1918	25/06/2008	21.02.2008, Konotop Court 	390	
16.		34251/08	TUAYEV IGOR RADIONOVICH
1965	10/01/2009	06.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
17.		34910/08	GORODISKIY IVAN PETROVICH
1968	08/07/2008	06.11.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
18.		35516/08	ILYENKO REGINA IVANIVNA
1931	05/07/2008	17.09.2007, Konotop Court 	480	
19.		41846/08	PETROV VLADIMIR PETROVICH
1951	11/08/2008	25.05.04, Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa (as amended by the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal on 18.11.2004)	750	
20.		42087/08	NIKULENKO ALEKSANDRA NIKOLAYEVNA
1954	11/08/2008	20.12.2005, Kharkov Regional Court of Appeal	795	
21.		42466/08	CHERNOV OLEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH
1964	14/08/02008	18.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	450	
22.		43790/08	SOLDATENKO IVAN IVANOVICH
1968	31/08/2008	27.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
23.		44762/08	KOVTUN VYACHESLAV NIKOLAYEVICH
1965	12/09/2008	16.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
24.		46275/08	SAVCHENKO ALEKSANDR ANATOLYEVICH
1962	12/09/2008	12.11.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
25.		48160/08	SHATOKHA NIKOLAY FEDOROVICH
1940	26/09/2008	27.09.2007, Konotop Court 	480	
26.		49757/08	ZHDANOV NIKOLAY TIMOFEYEVICH
1947	30/09/2008	05.11.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
27.		50974/08	SHVETS NIKOLAY VASILYEVICH
1962	08/10/2008	30.10.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
28.		51113/08	TAPMYANIN ALEKSANDR VITALYEVICH
1947	09/10/2008	06.11.2007, Konotop Court 	450	
29.		51714/08	KRUPINA VASILIY VASILYEVICH
1962	09/10/2008	20.09.2007, Konotop Court 	480	
30.		52601/08	KRASNOKUTSKA NINA GAVRYLIVNA
1951	20/10/2008	20.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	435	
31.		5412/09	PASTUSHENKO VLADIMIR MIKHAYLOVICH
1952	12/01/2009	20.09.2007, Konotop Court 	480	
32.		20643/09	BYTKIVSKYY SERGIY VASYLYOVYCH
1969	03/04/02009	12.10.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	435	
33.		30417/09	GUZOVSKYY LYUDVIG FRANTSOVYCH
1928 (the applicant died on 12 October 2010 and his widow, Mrs Valentyna Ivanivna Guzovska, expressed her wish to pursue the application)	20/05/2009	21.02.2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court	390	
34.		30607/09	TEMCHENKO YURIY STEPANOVYCH
1962	22/05/2009	22.03.2007, Novomoskovsk Court 	570	
35.		32918/09	ALFEROV GRIGORIY VASILYEVICH
1960	01/06/2009	18.09.2007, Konotop Court 	465	
36.		33627/09	GUDZ GAVRYLO STEPANOVYCH
1919	10/06/2009	21.01.2008 Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	405	
37.		39314/09	ONOPA OLEKSANDR MYKOLAYOVYCH
1960	08/07/2009	10.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 04.12.2008. 	255	
38.		43114/09	NEFEDOVA TAMARA AFONIVNA
1942	05/08/2009	30.10.2007, Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya	435	
39.		46520/09	BELSKYY VALENTYN VOLODYMYROVYCH
1969	11/08/2009	10.07.2008, Oleksandriya Court 	330	
40.		46679/09	KOZHYN VALERIY ANDRIYOVYCH
1962	17/08/2009	31.10.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	450	
41.		46994/09	SEMENYUK VASYL YURIYOVYCH
1960	22/08/2009	24.01.2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court 	420	
42.		47244/09	SOLODKYY SERGIY VASYLYOVYCH
1962	17/08/2009	19.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 14.04.2009	195	
43.		47318/09	SAGURA STANISLAV MYKHAYLOVYCH
1954	19/08/2009	10.04.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 04.12.2008 	255	
44.		48630/09	MZHACHYKH VOLODYMYR MYKHAYLOVYCH
1954	25/08/2009	13.05.2008, Oleksandriya Court, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 13.11.2008	270