[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Lyubov Mykolayivna TYCHENOK v Ukraine - 45131/06 [2012] ECHR 812 (10 April 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/812.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 812

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45131/06
Lyubov Mykolayivna TYCHENOK against Ukraine
and 10 other applications
(see table appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Mark Villiger, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates specified in the attached table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants are Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the table attached below. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev and Ms Valeria Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.

On various dates (see the table below) the national courts ordered the domestic authorities to pay various amounts to the applicants. Those judgments became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.

THE LAW

The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggested that the declarations 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 compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, would be free of any taxes that might be applicable and would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State¹ at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. They would 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 undertook 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 would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

In reply, the applicants agreed with the declarations, even though some of them doubted that the Government would comply with their terms.

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 in paragraph 1 (a)-(c) 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 recalls that in its pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009 ... (extracts)), it required Ukraine to:

“grant adequate and sufficient redress [...] to all applicants [...] whose complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions [had] been communicated to the respondent Government”.

In the light of the applicants’ consent with the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention is relevant in the present case. The Court takes note that the parties have agreed terms for settling the cases. This is also in line with the pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part) and the Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the cases. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s unilateral declarations and the applicants’ replies thereto;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President

Table