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
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.  Referring to the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)), the Government submitted to the Court several unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in the applications. By the above declarations, the Government acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour and declared that they were ready to enforce the domestic decisions which were still subject to execution, as well as to pay the applicants the sums specified in the annexed table. In some declarations the Government referred to the ex gratia principle of such payment. The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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.
3.  Having carefully examined the applicants’ remaining complaints in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are 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 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

No.	Application number	Applicant’s name, year of birth	Date of introduction	Domestic decisions about the lengthy non-enforcement of which the applicants complain
(the authority and date of the decision)	Date of the Government’s unilateral declaration	Compensation offered by the Government (euro)	
1.		38083/04	Norbert Iliych SMIRNOV, 1946	3 September 2004	Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 16 January 2002	9 December 2010	570	
2.		17782/06	Oleg Ivanovych SHAPOVALENKO, 1953	18 April 2006	Golosiyvskyy District Court of Kyiv,
6 October 2003	7 November 2011	1,440	
3.		10521/07	Lyudmila Anatolyevna KOVALEVA, 1962	6 February 2007	Zolochiv Court, 17 November 2005
(as amended by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal on 16 February 2006)	31 May 2011	765	
4.		18692/07	Yuriy Yevgenovych BOROVYY, 1968	13 March 2007	Brusylivka Court, 19 March 2001	7 November 2011	1,875	
5.		30958/07	Sergey Borisovich OSTAPENKO, 1967	31 May 2007	Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol,
4 December 2006	11 November 2011	855	
6.		32885/07	Mariya Antonivna SHCHERBYNA, 1946	27 June 2007	Krukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk,
29 October 2002
(as amended by the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal on 24 February 2004 and by Supreme Court of Ukraine on 21 March 2007)	13 September 2010	600	
7.		41700/07	Yevgeniy Petrovich FROLOV, 1972	14 August 2007	Gorlivka Court, 17 December 2003	7 November 2011	1,410	
8.		6296/08	Vladimir Vladimirovich CHUPLYY, 1954
	19 January 2008	Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 25 May 1999	30 July 2010	2,040	
9.		7559/08	Sergey Alekseyevich BORODIN, 1960
	12 December 2007	Makiyivka Court, 27 April 2007	12 January 2012	420	
10.		14603/08	Vera Sergeyevna LIZOGUBENKO, 1954	3 March 2008	Krasnyy Luch Court, 12 May 2005	9 December 2010	960	
11.		14631/08	Vladimir Arsenyevich ISHCHENKO (II), 1949	22 January 2008	Krasnyy Luch Court, 28 April 2006	9 December 2010	795	
12.		34880/08	Nikolay Ivanovich SHCHERBINA, 1950	1 July 2008	Oleksandriya Court, 21 December 2006	7 November 2011	645	
13.		50808/08	Gennadiy Sergeyevich LEBEDENKO, 1956	23 September 2008	Krasnyy Luch Court, 6 June 2005	9 December 2010	945	
14.		26353/09	Irina Nikolayevna YEROKHINA, 1963	4 March 2009	Slovyansk Court,
13 and 24 September 1999 and
22 February 2002	9 December 2011	2,190	
15.		26441/09	Aleksandr Nikolayevich SOB, 1960	4 March 2009	Labour disputes commission,
18 October 2001	9 December 2011	1,815	
16.		26442/09	Lyubov Nikolayevna SOB, 1939	4 March 2009	Labour disputes commission,
9 November 2001	9 December 2011	1,815	
17.		26443/09	Natalya Vladimirovna SOB, 1961	4 March 2009	Labour disputes commission,
18 October 2001	9 December 2011	1,815	
18.		26447/09	Vladimir Afanasyevich SOTSKOY, 1927	4 March 2009	Slovyansk Court, 30 October 1997	9 December 2011	2,535	
19.		37734/09	ISAR-VK	25 June 2009	Crimea Commercial Court,
18 October 2001	9 December 2010	465	
20.		39680/09	Yuriy Vitaliyovych NOVIKOV, 1965	11 July 2009	Dokuchayivsk Court,
26 December 2007 and 19 September 2008	9 December 2011	675	
21.		58974/09	Leonid Fedorovich BOBRYSHOV, 1948	24 October 2009	Donetsk District Administrative Court,
27 November2007
 (as amended by the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 14 March 2008 )	11 November 2011	525	
22.		5398/10	Georgiy Dmytrovych UCHAYEV, 1925	18 January 2010	Khmelnytsk Court, 5 November 2007	11 November 2011	600	
23.		5530/10	Nadezhda Maksimovna VLADIMIRSKAYA, 1960	22 December 2009	Bryanka Court, 17 April 2003 and
26 December 2006	8 December 2011	1,470	
24.		6046/10	Oleg Sergiyovych PANASYUK, 1981	22 January 2010	Dubno Court, 12 January 2007	11 November 2011	855	
25.		42086/10	Mykhaylo Maksymovych FEDYAYEV, 1923	29 June 2010	Khmelnytsk Regional Administrative Court, 18 September 2008	21 October 2011	555	
26.		46375/10	Iryna Volodymyrivna SARNAVSKA, 1964	3 August 2010	Gadyach Court,
10 July 2008
 (as amended by the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal on 21 October 2008)	12 October 2011	540	
27.		51129/10	Anatoliy Mykolayovych ZHURKIN, 1960
	27 August 2010	Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya, 1 June 2006	12 October 2011	945	
28.		51835/10	Vasiliy Mikhaylovich GABOV, 1961	17 August 2010	Krasnoarmiysk Court, 23 October 2008	12 October 2011	450	
29.		52700/10	Volodymyr Mykolayovych SVYATSKYY, 1951	4 September 2010	Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal,
10 March 2009	30 September 2011	450	
30.		64811/10	Leonid Oleksiyovych ZHOLUD, 1948	21 September 2010	Oleksandriya Court, 15 May 2008	30 September 2011	510	
31.		66223/10	Yevgeniy Georgiyovych NAYDYONOV, 1952	3 November 2010	Brovary Court, 10 April 2009

 Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal,
9 June 2009	12 October 2011	420	
32.		68197/10	Olena Leonidivna KOVALYOVA, 1960	5 November 2010	Svitlovodsk Court,
7 December 2000 and 12 January 2009	2 February 2012	1,995	
33.		71740/10	Anatoliy Sergiyovych PANCHENKO, 1950	26 November 2010	Melitopol Court, 19 July 2006	12 October 2011	960	
34	4348/11	1) Mykola Mykolayovych OKHRIMENKO, 1959
2) Oleksandr Mykolayovych OKHRIMENKO, 1986
3) Anna Vitaliyivna KRYVENKO, 1984	11 August 2010	Brovary Court,

1) 17 December 2007,
2) 3 December 2007,
3) 19 November 2007	12 October 2011	1) 675
2) 690
3) 690