Sergey Vladimirovich ORLOV v Ukraine - 44404/07 [2010] ECHR 2151 (14 December 2010)


    BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

    No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
    Thank you very much for your support!



    BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

    European Court of Human Rights


    You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sergey Vladimirovich ORLOV v Ukraine - 44404/07 [2010] ECHR 2151 (14 December 2010)
    URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2151.html
    Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2151

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


    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)

    44404/07

    ORLOV SERGEY VLADIMIROVICH

    1958

    03/10/2007

    22.09.2006, Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol

    315

    762/08

    GUZHOVSKYY VIKTOR MYKOLAYOVYCH

    1965

    27/11/2007

    26.09.2005, Ichnya District Court of Chernigiv Region

    825

    13353/08

    SMYK PAVLO DMYTROVYCH

    1961

    31/01/2008

    20.05.2002, Chervonograd Court

    1,440

    15827/08

    BUZYNSKA NADIYA IGNATIVNA

    1929

    19/03/2008

    04.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    435

    19594/08

    KAVUN RAYISA IVANIVNA

    1926

    23/02/2008

    28.04.2006 Tokmak court

    750

    19757/08

    ZHYZHKA GRYGORIY IVANOVYCH

    1956

    15/04/2008

    18.08.2005, Kyiv Court of Appeal

    390

    23210/08

    KOLVAKH KONSTANTUN ALEKSEYEVICH

    1958

    06/05/2008

    20.09.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    23719/08

    BATLUK VLADIMIR IVANOVICH

    1949

    05/05/2008

    29.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    25561/08

    KOVALENKO VLADIMIR IVANOVICH

    1965

    20/05/2008

    29.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    26066/08

    TERNYUK VIKTOR MYKOLAYOVYCH

    1966


    20/05/2008

    27.06.06, Starokonstjantynivskyy District Court of Khmelnytsky Region

    690

    27800/08

    SAYEVSKAYA MARIYA NIKOLAYEVNA

    1955

    04/06/2008

    2.10.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    30738/08

    GUSKOV OLEKSANDR MYKOLAYOVYCH

    1959

    17/06/2008

    31.03.03, Yavorivsky District Court of Lviv Region

    1,290

    31678/08

    DUDAREV VITALIY SERAFIMOVICH

    1932

    17/06/2008

    06.11.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    31679/08

    KRAPIVA ALLA ANDREYEVNA

    1925

    18/06/2008

    22.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    32528/08

    ZHURAVLYOVA VARVARA ALFIMOVNA

    1918

    25/06/2008

    21.02.2008, Konotop Court

    390

    34251/08

    TUAYEV IGOR RADIONOVICH

    1965

    10/01/2009

    06.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    34910/08

    GORODISKIY IVAN PETROVICH

    1968

    08/07/2008

    06.11.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    35516/08

    ILYENKO REGINA IVANIVNA

    1931

    05/07/2008

    17.09.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    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

    42087/08

    NIKULENKO ALEKSANDRA NIKOLAYEVNA

    1954

    11/08/2008

    20.12.2005, Kharkov Regional Court of Appeal

    795

    42466/08

    CHERNOV OLEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH

    1964

    14/08/02008

    18.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    450

    43790/08

    SOLDATENKO IVAN IVANOVICH

    1968

    31/08/2008

    27.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    44762/08

    KOVTUN VYACHESLAV NIKOLAYEVICH

    1965

    12/09/2008

    16.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    46275/08

    SAVCHENKO ALEKSANDR ANATOLYEVICH

    1962

    12/09/2008

    12.11.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    48160/08

    SHATOKHA NIKOLAY FEDOROVICH

    1940

    26/09/2008

    27.09.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    49757/08

    ZHDANOV NIKOLAY TIMOFEYEVICH

    1947

    30/09/2008

    05.11.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    50974/08

    SHVETS NIKOLAY VASILYEVICH

    1962

    08/10/2008

    30.10.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    51113/08

    TAPMYANIN ALEKSANDR VITALYEVICH

    1947

    09/10/2008

    06.11.2007, Konotop Court

    450

    51714/08

    KRUPINA VASILIY VASILYEVICH

    1962

    09/10/2008

    20.09.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    52601/08

    KRASNOKUTSKA NINA GAVRYLIVNA

    1951

    20/10/2008

    20.12.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    435

    5412/09

    PASTUSHENKO VLADIMIR MIKHAYLOVICH

    1952

    12/01/2009

    20.09.2007, Konotop Court

    480

    20643/09

    BYTKIVSKYY SERGIY VASYLYOVYCH

    1969

    03/04/02009

    12.10.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    435

    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

    30607/09

    TEMCHENKO YURIY STEPANOVYCH

    1962

    22/05/2009

    22.03.2007, Novomoskovsk Court

    570

    32918/09

    ALFEROV GRIGORIY VASILYEVICH

    1960

    01/06/2009

    18.09.2007, Konotop Court

    465

    33627/09

    GUDZ GAVRYLO STEPANOVYCH

    1919

    10/06/2009

    21.01.2008 Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    405

    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

    43114/09

    NEFEDOVA TAMARA AFONIVNA

    1942

    05/08/2009

    30.10.2007, Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya

    435

    46520/09

    BELSKYY VALENTYN VOLODYMYROVYCH

    1969

    11/08/2009

    10.07.2008, Oleksandriya Court

    330

    46679/09

    KOZHYN VALERIY ANDRIYOVYCH

    1962

    17/08/2009

    31.10.2007, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    450

    46994/09

    SEMENYUK VASYL YURIYOVYCH

    1960

    22/08/2009

    24.01.2008, Zhytomyr District Administrative Court

    420

    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

    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

    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




BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2151.html