CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 novembre 2013

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB81E279F { width:179.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sFD5D68B6 { width:97.32%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .s6C012F7C { width:7.74%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA2AE7717 { width:19.22%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sC4965989 { width:32.7%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sB0600E0D { width:40.34%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sB9F664EC { height:72.6pt } .s1FC617A2 { width:7.74%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDC215D7 { width:19.22%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt } .sF14F3C4E { width:32.7%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sFC7B6EC8 { width:40.34%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt } .s2B22B355 { width:7.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s20B362FA { width:19.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sF0A5DFB7 { width:32.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCA5B0CD6 { width:40.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s8FA2E8B1 { height:45.3pt } .s22D75D7A { height:23.45pt } .sB5E1263B { height:23.9pt } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         FIFTH SECTION           CASE OF VINNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 13977/05 and 45 other applications)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 November 2013         This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vinnik and others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in 46 applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals, one Lithuanian national (application no. 74608/10) and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”). 2.     In applications nos.   20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy. 4.     The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011. 5.     On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in seventeen applications. The Government requested the Court to strike the applications concerned out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the declarations. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government’s request. 6.     The Lithuanian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no.   74608/10 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44   of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and labour disputes commissions delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time. 8.     Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 9.     In view of the similarity of the applications set out in the Appendix in terms of the principal legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them. II.     ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION No. 36411/06 AS REGARDS THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH APPLICANTS 10.     In application no. 36411/06 the applicants, members of the same family, complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of three judgments given exclusively in favour of the first applicant, Mr   Petro Stanislavovych Abramov. The other applicants do not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in their favour and therefore they neither can complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of the alleged violations of their Convention rights. 11.     It follows that insofar as application no. 36411/06 has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. This part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III.     THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos.   20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 AND 31562/13 12.     The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos.   20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants’ stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine , no.   19916/04, § 12, 14   December   2006). IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 13.     The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour, as specified in the Appendix, and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. Expressly or in substance they relied on Articles   6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. 14.     The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 13 above) lodged by the applicants listed in the Appendix (by the first applicant only in application no.   36411/06) are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 15.     The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible. 16.     Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 40450/04, §§ 56-58 and 66-70, 15 October 2009) the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour. It also considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement. V.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 17.     Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention, which the Court has examined carefully. 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. 18.     It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     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.” 20.     In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03 and   89 other applications, §   24, 6 June 2013; Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65656/11 and   249 other applications, §   19, 20 June 2013; Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and   164 other applications, §   24, 20 June 2013) to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants (to the first applicant in application no. 36411/06). This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. 21.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable. 22.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Decides to join the applications set out in the Appendix;   2.     Declares application no. 36411/06 partly inadmissible insofar as it has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants;   3.     Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix (the first applicant only in application no.   36411/06) under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints admissible and the remainder of their applications inadmissible;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   13 of the Convention;   6.     Holds (a)     that within three months the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant (or his or her estate) listed in the Appendix (to the first applicant only in application no.   36411/06) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts, which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Stephen Phillips   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence Relevant domestic decision     13977/05 15/02/2005 Tatiana Leonidovna VINNIK 03/10/1958 Lysychansk 1) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 15/05/2003   2) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 02/11/2004     36411/06 18/08/2006 Petro Stanislavovych ABRAMOV (“the first applicant”) [1] 06/01/1968 Poltava 1) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 12/08/2003, as amended by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 24/03/2004   2) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 25/05/2005   3) Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 16/06/2005     23939/07 16/05/2007 Kostyantyn Volodymyrovych LOGUTOV 25/06/1976 Kyiv Vyshgorod Court, 17/03/2005     55215/07 03/12/2007 Iryna Yuriyivna SHAPARENKO 08/12/1957 Tarashcha Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, 21/10/2008     3001/08 04/01/2008 Inna Valeryivna MANOYLYK 07/11/1976 Chernigiv Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09/07/2004     7932/08 28/01/2008 Valentina Ivanovna TARASOVA 13/10/1954 Yenakiyeve Donetsk Regional Commercial Court, 23/07/2003 (no. 33/221?)     9091/08 05/02/2008 Vladimir Ivanovich BONDAR 09/06/1934 Odesa Malynovskyy District Court of Odesa, 03/06/2003     34957/08 04/07/2008 Kateryna Dmytrivna KOLESNIKOVA 23/09/1950 Poltava Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, 24/10/2006     42506/08 14/08/2008 Nina Mykolayivna KLINCHUK 28/10/1958 Korosten Korosten Court, 24/02/2006   48488/08 15/07/2008 Vitaliy Pavlovych ONYSHCHAK 19/04/1952 Khrystynivka Uman Court, 03/04/2008   17140/09 16/01/2009 Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO 05/01/1949 Vinnytsya 1) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 23/11/2006   2) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 12/11/2008   3) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/12/2006   4) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007 (case no. 2-1772)   5) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007   (case no. 2-a-824-07)   6) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/07/2008   18168/09 22/03/2009 Sergey Panasovich IVASHCHENKO 20/10/1916 Andreyevo-Ivanovo Mykolayivskyy District Court of the Odesa Region, 03/10/2007   20748/09 01/04/2009 Nikolay Ivanovich CHAYENKO 30/08/1947 Leninske Sverdlovsk Court, 17/04/2007   23273/09 17/04/2009 Anatoliy Ivanovych MATSNEV 06/10/1950 Vinnytsya Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 30/03/2007   23366/09 04/04/2009 Sergiy Viktorovych KISELYOV 28/09/1965 Vatutine Vatutine Court, 03/08/2007, quashed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 20/05/2010   23702/09 16/04/2009 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SKUDIN 07/08/1986 Mariupol Prymorskyy District Court of Mariupol, 30/05/2008   30370/09 26/05/2009 Viktor Mykolayovych KOVAL 07/05/1954 Oleksandriya 1) Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/07/2008   2) Oleksandriya Court, 10.04.2008.   32650/09 26/05/2009 Sergey Nikolayevich PELIKHOS 15/06/1971 Makiyivka Chervonogvardiyskyy District Court of Makiyivka, 12/04/2007   46819/09 19/08/2009 Leonid Ivanovych GRYGORUK 23/04/1956 Kyiv Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv, 12/02/2008 (as amended by the Higher Administrative Court   on 26/07/2011)   62241/09 03/11/2009 Daniya Galimzhanovna SHAKIRZYANOVA 24/02/1954 Zhuravlivka Shakhtarsk Court, 27/12/2005   2831/10 16/12/2009 Valentina Georgiyevna OVCHINNIKOVA 23/11/1932 Mykolayiv Tsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv, 12/07/2007   4855/10 06/01/2010 Mikhail Mefodyevich GRIGORYEV 27/05/1951 Lugansk Artemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 13/10/2008   4862/10 06/01/2010 Vladimir Fedorovich DUDENKO 22/04/1951 Lugansk Artemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 10/11/2008   25288/10 23/04/2010 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SHMULYA 12/02/1945 Koroviy Yar Krasnyy Lyman Court, 17/08/1999   25762/10 23/04/2010 Vasyl Ivanovych TYSHCHENKO 04/05/1950 Koroviy Yar Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003   28839/10 07/05/2010 Iryna Myroslavivna CHAYKOVSKA 22/08/1981 Ternopil Ternopil Court, 11/05/2009 (date stated in the text of the judgment 11/06/2009)   42011/10 13/07/2010 Nina Panteleymonovna ASTAPENKO 01/01/1939 Tsyurupynsk Tsuyrupinsk Court, 29/03/2000   46017/10 26/07/2010 Mykhaylo Mykolayovych SIRENKO 19/11/1957 Selydove Sylidove Court, 17/05/2004   48219/10 02/08/2010 Petr Stepanovich TRIFONOV 06/02/1953 Kiliya 1) Kiliya Court, 28/02/2007   2) Kiliya Court, 28/08/2002   3) Kiliya Court, 10/02/2000   51820/10 20/07/2010 Aleksandr Ivanovich PODOPRIGORA 15/12/1957 Kryvyy Rig Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 11/07/2008 as amended by judgment of the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 22/06/2009   64871/10 26/10/2010 Yelena Aleksandrovna BELOCHENKO 24/05/1926 Sevastopol Kotovsk Court, 27/05/2008, quashed by the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 01/06/2011   68156/10 01/07/2010 Ivan Tymofiyovych BAVINOV 28/10/1934 Kremenchuk Avtozavodskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 04/09/2003   68607/10 05/11/2010 Larisa Fedorovna KOLESNIKOVA 03/04/1951 Mariupol Novoazovsk Court, 07/07/2006   69438/10 09/11/2010 Ruslan Yuriyovych LYAKH 13/08/1966 Kolomyya Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/11/2006   74338/10 20/11/2010 FPK GROSS OOO   Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 21/04/2000   74608/10 07/12/2010 Yevgeniy Stepanovich UGLEV 23/07/1952 Cherkasy Sosnovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 11/02/2008   572/11 12/12/2010 1) Volodymyr Mykolayovych OLKHOVSKYY 28/01/1981 Poltava   2) Olena Oleksandrivna OLKHOVSKA 28/01/1981 Poltava Applicant 1 Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009   Applicant 2 Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009   656/11 20/12/2010 Viktor Pavlovich ZAKHAROV 06/09/1950 Kripenskiy 1) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005;   2) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005   768/11 13/12/2010 Magdalina Vasilyevna LADZHUN 20/08/1949 Mukachevo Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal, 14/07/2005   1205/11 22/12/2010 Ivan Prokofyevich SKREBTSOV 02/11/1949 Lugansk 1) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 20/11/2007, as amended by the Higher Administrative Court, 22/07/2010   2) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 25/11/2008   1503/11 25/12/2010 Nataliya Viktorivna ARKHYPOVA 20/10/1970 Lysychansk Lysychansk Court, 15/02/2005   1677/11 26/12/2010 Nataliya Nikolayevna BACHKALOVA 14/06/1953 Poltava 1) Poltava Circuit Administrative Court, 08/10/2008   2) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 03/08/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15/05/2008   3) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 02/11/2009   2491/11 29/12/2010 IBRIS, TOV Dnipropetrovsk Kyiv Commercial Court 27/02/2006 (amended on 19/04/2006 by the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal and on 31/01/2007 by the Higher Administrative Court)   4510/11 10/01/2011 Vladimir Alekseyevich POPOV 04/01/1944 Lugansk Kamyanobridskyy District Court of Lugansk, 24/06/2009   6638/11 15/01/2011 Oleksandr Onysymovych KUDLAYENKO 18/01/1955 Vinnytsya 1) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 21/12/2006   2) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/04/2007   31562/13 24/02/2010 Anatoliy Sydorovych PASTUSHENKO 08/09/1947 Donetsk Kirovskyy District Court of Donetsk, 09/12/2008   [1] .     Second, third and fourth applicants (inadmissible): Mariya Leontiyivna ABRAMOVA, Olga Petrivna ABRAMOVA, Sofiya Petrivna ABRAMOVA