CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 janvier 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s626F64ED { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D50DFE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.05pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD10E2163 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA464CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1695E492 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s136DAA9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s53D63747 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8B3C4997 { width:38.94pt; display:inline-block } .s73DE62FF { width:136.61pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB72AB8D9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KOPYLOVICH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE     (Applications nos.   1421/03, 11915/06, 11922/06 and 11924/06)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG       17 January 2008       FINAL     17/04/2008       This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44   §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kopylovich and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska,   Javier Borrego Borrego,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger, judges, and Claudia W esterdiek, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos.   1421/03, 11915/06, 11922/06 and 11924/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court on 16   October   2002 and 12   May   2003 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty Ukrainian nationals: -     Mrs   Lyubov Nikolayevna Kopylovich, born in   1951; -     Mrs   Nina Stepanovna Gebuza, born in   1937; -     Mr   Aleksandr Fedorovich Glukhov, born in   1933; -     Mrs   Tamara Ivanovna Ivanova, born in   1940; -     Mr   Sergey Nikolayevich Kashaykin, born in   1961; -     Mrs   Olga Stepanovna Kharitonova, born in   1959; -     Mrs   Alla Grigoryevna Khodunko born in   1942; -     Mrs   Aleksandra Pavlovna Konareva, born in   1939; -     Mrs   Yelena Grigoryevna Korenchuk, born in   1958; -     Mr   Yevgeniy Borisovich Shchepanovskiy, born in   1948; -     Mrs   Larisa Dmitriyevna Sidelnikova, born in   1938; -     Mrs   Valenina Vladimirovna Soroka, born in   1943; -     Mr   Boris Martiyanovich Yevtekhov, born in   1939; -     Mrs Olga Fedorovna Cherkashina, born in 1958; -     Mr Anatoliy Dmitriyevich Gritsyna, born in 1959; -     Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Bachurin, born in   1931; -     Mrs Larisa Valentinovna Boyko, born in   1961; -     Mrs Yelena Yevgeniyevna Romanenko, born in   1959; -     Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Shevkunov, born in   1957; -     Mr Vitaliy Fedorovich Visloguzov, born in 1940. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Y. Zaytsev, their Agent, and Mrs   I.   Shevchuk, Head of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 30   May   2006 the Court decided to communicate to the Government the complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments and the labour commission's decisions given in the applicants' favour. Under the provisions of Article 29   §   3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants live in Kostyantynivka, in the Donetsk region. 5.     On various dates between 1997 and 2002 (see appendix for details) the first to fifteenth applicants received final rulings (court judgments, labour commission's decisions) awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the State-owned factory “Avtosklo” ( Виробниче об'єднання завод „Автоскло” ) and instituted enforcement proceedings to recover the debts. 6.     On 22   August   2000 a new State-owned company, the “Tehkbudsklo” ( Державне підприємство „Технобудскло” ), was created in the course of the “Avtosklo” factory restructuring. 7.     On various dates in 2002 (see appendix for details) the fifteenth to the twentieth applicants received final court judgments awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the “Tekhbudsklo” company and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the debts. 8.     On various dates the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts in their favour was impeded by the companies' lack of funds and the statutory moratorium on forced sale of the State property. 9.     On 18   February   2002 and 1   November   2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court ( Господарський суд Донецької області ) declared bankrupt the “Avtosklo” and the “Tekhbudsklo” companies respectively and ordered their liquidation. 10.     On 19   April and 1   November   2005 the enforcement proceedings concerning “Avtosklo's” and “Tekhbudsklo's” debts respectively were terminated on account of the initiation of the companies' liquidation. 11.     The labour commission's decisions and the court judgments given in the applicants' favour remain unenforced to the present date. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 12.     The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur v.   Ukraine (no. 29439/02, §   17-22, 26 April 2005). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 13.     Pursuant to Rule 42   §   1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background. II.     COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLES 6   §   1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL   No.   1 14.     The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce the court judgments and labour commission's decisions given in their favour. They invoked Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A.     Admissibility 15.     The Government provided no observations on the admissibility of the above complaints. 16.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.   Merits 17.     In their observations on the merits of the applicants' complaints, the Government contended that there had been no violation of the applicants' Convention rights. 18.     The applicants disagreed. 19.     The Court notes that the periods of debt recovery in the applicants' cases have ranged from five to nine years. 20.     The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1 in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Polovoy   v. Ukraine , no.   11025/02, §§   22 and 25, 4   October   2005). 21.     Having examined all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 22.     There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and of Article   1   of Protocol   No.   1. 23.     The Court does not find it necessary in the circumstances to examine under Article   13 of the Convention the same complaint as under Article   6   §   1. III.     COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 24.     The applicants additionally complained under Article   3 of the Convention that the failure of the State authorities to enforce the decisions given in their favour caused them severe moral and physical suffering. 25.     The Court observes that it does not appear that the suffering that the applicants might have experienced was sufficient to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article   3 of the Convention (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 18   January   1978, Series   A no.   25, §   162). Therefore, this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 26.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 27.     All applicants claimed the unsettled debts due to them. In addition, they claimed the following amounts by way of just satisfaction: -     The first applicant claimed EUR   530 (UAH   3,334) in inflation losses and EUR   1,740 (UAH   11,000) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The second applicant claimed EUR   120 (UAH   775) in inflation losses and EUR   23,600 (UAH   149,315) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The third applicant claimed EUR   240 (UAH   1,522) in inflation losses and EUR   800 (UAH   5,044) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The fourth applicant claimed EUR   380 (UAH   2,408) in inflation losses and EUR   680 (UAH   4,320) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The fifth applicant claimed EUR   1,750 (UAH   11,062) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The sixth applicant claimed EUR   480 (UAH   3,028) in inflation losses and EUR   1,850 (UAH   11,720) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The seventh applicant claimed EUR   435 (UAH   2,750) in inflation losses and EUR   1,630 (UAH   10,330) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The eighth applicant claimed EUR   620 (UAH   3,901) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The ninth applicant claimed EUR   910 (UAH   5.766.84) in inflation losses and EUR   3,860 (UAH   24,402.32) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The tenth applicant claimed EUR   335 (UAH   2,126) in inflation losses and EUR   1,670 (UAH   10,582) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The eleventh applicant claimed EUR   600 (UAH   3,745) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The twelfth applicant claimed EUR   270 (UAH   1,719) in inflation losses and EUR   500 (UAH   3,000) in non-pecuniary damage; -     The thirteenth applicant claimed EUR   1,025 (UAH   6,480) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The fourteenth applicant claimed EUR   2,150 (UAH   13,370) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The fifteenth applicant claimed EUR   2,750 (UAH   17,686) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The sixteenth applicant claimed EUR   2,520 (UAH   16,186) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The seventeenth applicant claimed EUR   960 (UAH   6,186) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The eighteenth applicant claimed EUR   1,470 (UAH   9,458) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The nineteenth applicant claimed EUR   2,380 (UAH   15,320) in non ‑ pecuniary damage; -     The twentieth applicant claimed EUR   1,480 (UAH   9,522) in non ‑ pecuniary damage. 28.     Those applicants who claimed inflation losses, presented detailed calculations based on official inflation tables published in a newspaper by the Labour Ministry. 29.     The Government generally disagreed with the claims, submitted by the applicants. They provided no comments on the applicants' method of the calculation of inflation losses. 30.     The Court finds that the Government should pay the applicants the debts, which remain outstanding. 31.     The Court further recalls that the principle underlying the provision of just satisfaction is that the applicant should as far as possible be put in the position he would have enjoyed had the violation found by the Court not occurred ( Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-IV). Turning to the instant case, the Court observes that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if the debts were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce their value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see e.g. Reynbakh   v. Russia , no.   23405/03, §   35, 29 September 2005). Taking into account that the first, the second, the third, the fourth, the sixth, the seventh, the tenth and the twelfth applicants presented detailed calculations based on the official tables, and that the Government submitted no objections to the applicants' claim or the method of calculation, the Court finds it reasonable to award these applicants the amounts claimed in inflation losses, namely: -     the first applicant – EUR   530; -     the second applicant – EUR   120; -     the third applicant – EUR   240; -     the fourth applicant – EUR   380; -     the sixth applicant – EUR   480; -     the seventh applicant – EUR   435; -     the tenth applicant – EUR   335; -     the twelfth applicant – EUR   270. The Court, however, dismisses the claim for inflation loss lodged by the ninth applicant, as compensation for the loss of value of the amount due was part of the judgment debt due to her (see appendix). 32.     Finally, the Court finds that the applicants must have suffered non ‑ pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicants the following amounts under this head: -     the first applicant – EUR   1,740; -     the second applicant – EUR   2,000; -     the third applicant – EUR   800; -     the fourth applicant – EUR   680; -     the fifth applicant – EUR   1,750; -     the sixth applicant – EUR   1,850; -     the seventh applicant – EUR   1,630; -     the eight applicant – EUR   620; -     the ninth applicant – EUR   1,600; -     the tenth applicant – EUR   1,670; -     the eleventh applicant – EUR   600; -     the twelfth applicant – EUR   500; -     the thirteenth applicant – EUR   1,025; -     the fourteenth applicant – EUR   1,600; -     the fifteenth applicant – EUR   2,600; -     the sixteenth applicant – EUR   1,600; -     the seventeenth applicant – EUR   960; -     the eighteenth applicant – EUR   1,470; -     the nineteenth applicant – EUR   1,600; -     the twentieth applicant – EUR   1,480. B.     Costs and expenses 33.     The applicants did not submit any claim under this head. The Court therefore makes no award. C.     Default interest 34.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints under Articles   6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 admissible and the complaints under Article   3 of the Convention inadmissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 of the Convention;   5.     Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article   13 of the Convention;   6.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44   §   2 of the Convention (i) the outstanding debts due to them under the judgments and labour commission's decisions listed in the appendix; (ii) the following sums in respect of just satisfaction: -     Mrs   Kopylovich – EUR   2,270 (two thousand two hundred and seventy euros); -     Mrs   Gebuza – EUR   2,120 (two thousand one hundred and twenty euros); -     Mr   Glukhov – EUR   1,040 (one thousand and forty euros); -     Mrs   Ivanova – EUR   1,060 (one thousand and sixty euros); -     Mr   Kashaykin – EUR   1,750 (one thousand seven hundred and fifty euros); -     Mrs   Kharitonova – EUR   2,330 (two thousand three hundred and thirty euros); -     Mrs   Khodunko – EUR   2,065 (two thousand and sixty five euros); -     Mrs   Konareva – EUR   620 (six hundred twenty euros); -     Mrs   Korenchuk – EUR   1,600 (on thousand and six hundred euros); -     Mr   Shchepanovskiy – EUR   2,005 (two thousand and five euros); -     Mrs   Sidelnikova – EUR   600 (six hundred euros); -     Mrs   Soroka – EUR   770 (seven hundred and seventy euros); -     Mr   Yevtekhov – EUR   1,025 (one thousand and twenty five euros); -     Mrs   Cherkashina – EUR   1,600 (one thousand and six hundred euros); -     Mr   Gritsyna – EUR   2,600 (two thousand and six hundred euros); -     Mr   Bachurin – EUR   1,600 (one thousand and six hundred euros); -     Mrs   Boyko – EUR   960 (nine hundred and sixty euros); -     Mrs   Romanenko – EUR   1,470 (one thousand four hundred and seventy euros); -     Mr   Shevkunov – EUR   1,600 (one thousand and six hundred euros); -     Mr   Visloguzov – EUR   1,480 (one thousand four hundred and eighty euros); plus any tax that may be chargeable; (b)     that the above amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (c)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Claudia W esterdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President   APPENDIX N Applicant Authority, which issue a decision Debtor company Date of decision Award hryvnyas (euros) 1. Mrs Kopylovich Labour disputes commission Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo Avtosklo 11   December   1997 14   November   2000 3   December   2002 1,121.00 (242.13) 2,518.83 (539.78) 1,524.04 (297.12) 2. Mrs   Gebuza Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 26   November   1999 739.30 (142.70) 3. Mr   Glukhov Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 12   March   2001 8   November   2002 1,000.00 (197.70) 748.55 (143.98) 4. Mrs   Ivanova Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 10   October   2000 21   November   2002 1,912.05 (404.35) 1,086.35 (210.39) 5. Mr   Kashaykin Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 14   May   1998 11   December   2000 2,291.00 (554.54) 3,285.78 (681.66) 6. Mrs   Kharitonova Kostyantynivka Court Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 19   December   1997 6   August   2002 1,758.00 (380.20) 4,111.72 (815.24) 7. Mrs   Khodunko Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 16   November   2000 29   November   2002 2,415.57 (518.14) 1,151.00 (224.11) 8. Mrs   Konareva Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 20   October   2000 1,950.69 (425.61) 9. Mrs   Korenchuk Kostyantynivka Court   Avtosklo 6   August   2002 6,434.32 (1,275.75) and additional compensation for the loss of value to be calculated on the date of the settlement 10. Mr   Shchepanovskiy Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 14   November   2001 3,165.00 (1,365.05) 11. Mrs   Sidelnikova Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 2   April   2001 1,872.92 (395.25) 12. Mrs   Soroka Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo 16   November   2000 29   November   2002 1,433.90 (307.57) 755.00 (147.33) 13. Mr   Yevtekhov Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 25   April   2000 6,479.99 (1,262.28) 14. Mrs   Cherkashina Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo 16   August   2002 6,885.04 (1,362.74) 15. Mr   Gritsyna Kostyantynivka Court Labour disputes commission Kostyantynivka Court   Kostyantynivka Court Avtosklo Avtosklo Avtosklo   Tekhbudsklo 4   December   1997 21   November   2000 26   March   2002   17   December   2002 315.99 (144.89) 2,892.30 (624.70) 4,478.66 (997.97) and additional loss of value compensation to be calculated on the date of the settlement 1,156.89 (219.41) 16. Mr   Bachurin Kostyantynivka Court Tekhbudsklo 23   October   2002 8,092.79 (1,609.13) 17. Mrs   Boyko Kostyantynivka Court Tekhbudsklo 5   September   2002 3,092.88 (605.51) 18. Mrs   Romanenko Kostyantynivka Court Tekhbudsklo 17   December   2002 4,728.80 (896.94) 19. Mr   Shevkunov Kostyantynivka Court Tekhbudsklo 25   November   2002 7,660.17 (1,472.09) 20. Mr   Visloguzov Kostyantynivka Court Tekhbudsklo 10   December   2002 4,761.37 (913.57)