CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; 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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34172/04 by Vasiliy Semyonovich NEGREY against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 June 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   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 September 2004, 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, Mr Vasiliy Semyonovich Negrey, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka. Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a former employee of the State-owned OJSC   “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш” ). The background facts of the case are described in the case of Semenov v.   Ukraine (no.   25463/03, §§   5-13, 13 December 2005). By a decision of 5 April 2000 the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH   6,023 [1] in salary arrears. On 20 April 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings. On 2 April 2004 the Nova Kakhovka City Court ( Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області ) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH   3,409 [2] in salary arrears as of 1 August 2003. This judgment became final and the writ of execution was transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service. On 29 September 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to him in full.   COMPLAINT   The applicant complained under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of the Labour Disputes Commission’s decision of 5 April 2000 and the Nova Kakhovka City Court’s judgment of 2 April 2004 in his favour. THE LAW On 14 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration, signed by the applicant: I, Vasiliy Semyonovich Negrey, note that the Government of Ukraine are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2600 (two thousand six 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 Ukrainian hryvnyas 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 the final resolution of the case.   On 26 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: I, Yuriy Zaytsev, 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 Vasiliy Semyonovich Negrey 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 Ukrainian hryvnyas 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] Around 1,000 euros (EUR) [2] Around 566 euros (EUR)