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 >> Yegor Vasilyevich MISHYN v Ukraine - 16799/07 [2012] ECHR 662 (27 March 2012)
      URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/662.html
      Cite as: [2012] ECHR 662

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




      FIFTH SECTION

      DECISION

      Application no. 16799/07
      Yegor Vasilyevich MISHYN
      against Ukraine

      The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:

      Mark Villiger, President,
      Ganna Yudkivska,
      André Potocki, judges,
      and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

      Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2007,

      Having deliberated, decides as follows:

      THE FACTS

      The applicant, Mr Yegor Vasylyovych Mishyn, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Torez.

      In June 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against a company seeking recovery of a certain payment. On 30 January 2007 the proceedings were completed by a final decision of the Supreme Court.

      The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.

      THE LAW

    1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
    2. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 10 October 2011, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

      The declaration provided as follows:

      The Government of Ukraine acknowledge the excessive duration of the consideration of the applicant’s case before the national courts.

      I, Valeria Lutkovska, the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia 2,600 (two thousand six hundred) euros to Mr. Yegor Vasylyovych Mishyn.

      The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. The Government of Ukraine 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.

      This sum ex gratia is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it 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 case.”

      The applicant objected to the Government’s declaration.

      The Court recalls 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, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 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”.

      It also recalls 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.

      The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 39-52, 6 September 2005; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 52-61, 21 December 2006).

      Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the amount of compensation proposed which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, bearing in mind the fact that the proceedings lasted, within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, for over nine years and four months (as the Convention entered into force in respect of Ukraine on 11 September 1997), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

      Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

      Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1(c).

    3. The applicant also complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, about the unfavourable for him outcome of the domestic proceedings and his alleged deprivation of property as a result.
    4. Having carefully examined these 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 this part of the application is 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

      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the excessive length of the civil proceedings;

      Decides to strike the application 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 Mark Villiger
      Deputy Registrar President

       



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/662.html