CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB5161368 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9115381 { width:179.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25136/03 by Valentina Aleksandrovna BERGER against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Valentina Aleksandrovna Berger, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Kherson, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 1 March 2001 the Labour Disputes Commission of the State Central Construction Bureau “Izumrud” (“the Bureau”) awarded the applicant 1,205.23 [1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)   in salary arrears to be paid by the Bureau, the applicant’s former employer. By a letter of 26 July 2006 the applicant informed the Court that this decision had been enforced by two instalments, on 25   June 2002 and 25 August 2004, the length of enforcement proceedings having been more than three years and five months. In July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson claiming salary arrears from the Bureau. On 5   December 2002 the court awarded the applicant UAH 36.89 [2] in salary arrears. On 27 February 2003 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. By letter of 26 July 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 5 December 2002 was enforced on 7 October 2005, the length of enforcement being more than two years and seven months. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of the labour disputes commission and of the judgment in her favour. THE LAW On 16 February 2007 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant:   “I, Valentina Aleksandrovna Berger, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR   1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.   This sum will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Ukraine in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”   On 23 February 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “I, Yuriy Zaytsev, Agent of the Government before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay ex gratia EUR   1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros) to Ms Valentina Aleksandrovna Berger with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.   This sum will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”   The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 §   1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President   [1] At the material time around 240.51 euros (EUR) [2] At the material time around EUR 7.16