PSHECHENKO proti Ukrajině

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1259/06
Vladimir Pavlovich PSHECHENKO against Ukraine
and 20 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 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 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies thereon,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

On the dates set out in the attached table the domestic courts or the labour disputes commissions (“the LDC”) ordered the domestic authorities to take certain actions or to pay various pecuniary amounts to the applicants. The judgments in the applicants’ favour became final, but the authorities delayed their enforcement.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. Some of them also raised other complaints.

THE LAW

1. The Court considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.

2. By letters dated 21 April, 4 May and 12-15 July 2011, the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declarations, signed on the same dates, with a view to settling the applicants’ non-enforcement complaints. By these declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the applicants’ judgments and undertook to enforce the judgments that were still subject to enforcement and to pay the applicants ex gratia sums as specified in the annexes to the declarations (for the sums, see table below). The remainder of the declarations read as follows:

“The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration[s] 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 [ex gratia] ... are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. [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 agreed with the terms of the declarations, even though some of them doubted that the Government would comply with the declarations.

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), (b) or (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, cited above) it required Ukraine to

“grant adequate and sufficient redress within one year[1] 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 light of the applicants’ agreement 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 non-enforcement complaints. Accordingly, they should be struck out of the list.

3. Having carefully examined the remainder of the complaints raised by some of the applicants 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 they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these complaints are 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

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour and the applicants’ replies thereon;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX

[1]. This term was further extended for another six months.