CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E02683C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCFFA0315 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s70EF54D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.55pt; font-size:12pt } .sAD36A042 { width:32.55pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2AE62EB6 { width:29.22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)25 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Fedorenko against Ukraine   (Application No. 25921/02, judgment of 1 June 2006, final on 1 September 2006)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the public authority's refusal to honour a dollar value clause provided by a sale contract it signed with the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Ukraine's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (15 ‑ 17   October   2007), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)25   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Fedorenko against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that the public authority, the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice, to which the applicant sold his house refused to honour the “dollar-value clause” set out in the sale contract. The purpose of this clause was to protect the monetary value of a contract of sale against currency variation. The execution of the contract was delayed by the public authority. However when the applicant requested the application of the dollar-value clause, the public authority refused to do so on the ground that the clause was null because the person who signed the contract on its behalf had acted ultra vires. This position was ultimately upheld, in part, by the Ukrainian courts (the domestic court only ordered the statutory interest to be paid to the applicant for the considerable delay). The European Court found that since the applicant signed a contract with a public authority, he had a legitimate expectation as to the validity of all its clauses. Accordingly the European Court concluded that the public authority's refusal to honour the dollar-value clause, in the absence of any appropriate compensation, constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 5   890 EUR 1   000 EUR 700 EUR 7   590 EUR Paid on 25/10/2006   b) Individual measures   The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. No individual measure thus seems to be necessary.     II.   General measures   The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website. It was published in the official government bulletin, the Official Herald of Ukraine No. 39 of 11/10/2006. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government Currier No. 179 of 26/09/2006.   The Ukrainian authorities indicated that the judgment of the European Court had been sent out to all competent authorities together with letters from their hierarchy inviting them to take account of the findings of the European Court in their daily practice, i.e :   -                       to the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 15/09/2006; -   to the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice on 29/09/2006.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies