[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Norbert Iliych SMIRNOV v Ukraine - 38083/04 [2012] ECHR 1039 (5 June 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1039.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 1039

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

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 38083/04
Norbert Iliych SMIRNOV against Ukraine
and 33 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 June 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 annexed table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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

On the dates set out in the table below the domestic courts and a commission on labour disputes (applications nos. 26441/09, 26442/09 and 26443/09) ordered the authorities to pay the applicants various pecuniary amounts or to take certain actions in their favour. The decisions in the applicants’ favour became final, but remain unenforced.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on various provisions of the Convention, the applicants complained about the delayed non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention.

THE LAW

The Government also declared that the compensation sums were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, that they would be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement and would be free of any taxes that might be applicable. The sums 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 Convention. 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 the 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. The declarations provided that the payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases or did not provide any comments.

The Court reiterates that 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 Article 37 § 1 (a)-(c) of the Convention. In particular, under Article 37 § 1 (c) the Court may 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 made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court recalls that in its pilot judgment on the issues of non enforcement it ordered Ukraine to grant redress to the applicants whose applications were communicated to the Government before the delivery of the judgment or would be communicated further to the judgment and concerned complaints about the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 99 and point 6 of the operative part). Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court understands them as intending to give the applicants the redress in accordance with the pilot judgment.

The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the decisions given in the applicants’ favour and undertook to pay the outstanding debts, in spite of the fact that in some declarations the Government referred to ex gratia principle of such payment. It also notes that the compensation sums offered by the Government are comparable with the amounts awarded in similar cases, taking into account, inter alia, specific delay in each particular case.

The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicants’ complaints about the lengthy non enforcement of domestic decisions. 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 complaints. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list in so far as they concern the lengthy non-enforcement of domestic decisions.

It follows that these parts of the applications 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 domestic decisions given in their favour;

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 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX