CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 janvier 2014

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s85E31ED7 { width:164.86pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s5E21BD4C { width:191.88pt; display:inline-block } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D38DC82 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAC012AE5 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE33A8ED { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF44D712C { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .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 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s9915582F { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5277623D { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sD501EF41 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sD7284F03 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION           CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 6155/05 and 22 others – see list appended)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   9 January 2014       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kyselyova 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 3 December 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in 23 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 and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”). 2.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy. 3.     The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011. 4.     On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in three 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 requests. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission 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. 6.     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 7.     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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 8.     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. 9.     The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 8 above) 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. 10.     The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible. 11.     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. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 12.     In applications nos. 26359/06, 21116/07, 47023/07, 15730/08, 21181/08, 21701/08, 46205/08 and 33523/09 the applicants raised complaints concerning non-enforcement of other domestic court decisions. Having examined the parties’ submissions and the available material, the Court decided to reject these complaints as manifestly ill-founded as whole, pursuant to Article 35   §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 13.     Some of the applicants also 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. 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. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. 16.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable. 17.     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 the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix 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;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   13 of the Convention;   5.     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 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 9 January 2014, 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 Relevant domestic decision     6155/05 26/01/2005 Zhanna Mykhaylivna KYSELYOVA 30/07/1972 Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 03/06/2003 (in the light of Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 19/04/2002 and 09/10/2001)     38540/05 12/10/2005 1) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUK 07/10/1939   2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNA 12/051960   3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURIN 10/08/1965   4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINA 14/02/1965   5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINA 11/12/1954   6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINA 24/06/1952   7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKO 02/03/1947   8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVA 11/06/1980   9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOV 27/06/1965   10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVA 07/06/1977   11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOV 07/08/1946   12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYA 06/01/1956   13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVA 01/01/1949 1) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUK Torez Court, 25/05/2004   2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURIN Torez Court, 25/05/2004   4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKO Torez Court, 25/05/2004   8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOV Torez Court, 25/05/2004   10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVA Torez Court, 25/05/2004   11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOV Torez Court, 25/05/2004   12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYA Shakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004   13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVA Shakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004     2468/06 10/12/2005 Natalya Ivanovna ABAKUMOVA 09/03/1969 Krasnograd Court, 05/06/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Regiolnal Court of Appeal on 14/08/2007     11534/06 06/03/2006 Anna Alekseyevna POLYAKOVA 01/01/1942   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich PIKULITSKIY 29/10/1939 Applicant 1: 1) Slovyansk Court, 31/07/2003   Applicant 2: 2) Slovyansk Court, 13/12/2002     26359/06 15/06/2006 Dmitriy Iosifovich TURLAKOV 01/05/1943 Kupyansk Court, 17/02/2006     12326/07 01/03/2007 Andrey Ivanovich KUPRIYENKO 01/01/1948 1) Khmilnyk Court, 11/08/1997 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005   2) Khmilnyk Court, 23/01/2001 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005     21116/07 27/04/2007 Grygoriy Grygorovych BODNAR 05/10/1947 Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 17/10/2005, quashed by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal on 11/02/2008     44334/07 27/09/2007 Tamara Mykolayivna DENYSYUK 10/07/1953 Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol, 12/01/2006     47023/07 13/10/2007 Anatoliy Vladimirovich RUDENKO 01/02/1949 Krasnyy Luch Court, 14/04/2004   6509/08 23/01/2008 Svetlana Vasilyevna ZHUKOVA 06/09/1962   Dmitriy Olegovich ZHUKOV 07/09/1986 Selydiv Court, 28/12/2004   11597/08 26/02/2008 Volodymyr Mykolayovych MELETSKYY 28/08/1951 1) Kozelets Court, 18/04/2005   2) Prydniprovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 28/02/2007   15730/08 Viktor Nikolayevich VELICHKO 11/08/1964 Teplodar Court, 04/04/2007   21181/08 19/04/2008 Aleksandr Grigoryevich POPKOV 12/11/1944 1) Slovyansk Court, 24/11/2000   2) Slovyansk Court, 26/02/2001   3) Slovyansk Court, 10/10/2001   4) Slovyansk Court, 23/11/2004   5) Slovyansk Court, 12/12/2007   6) Slovyansk Court, 11/11/2008   21701/08 21/04/2008 KARINA, TOV Lviv Commercial Court, 07/12/2006   37616/08 19/07/2008 Vyacheslav Semyonovich USOV 31/05/1941 1) Zhovti Vody Court, 06/10/2000   2) Zhovti Vody Court, 10/06/05 as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal on 25/01/2006   38364/08 31/07/2008 KORTEKS, VAT Zhytomyr Regional Commercial Court, 17/10/2005   46205/08 12/09/2008 Yaroslav Vasilyovych BOYCHUK 15/08/1948 1) Verkhovyna Court, 05/07/2004 as amended by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal on 30/09/2004   2) Verhovyna Court, 26/03/2007   59374/08 20/11/2008 Gulyam Khabib AKBARI 07/01/1959 Illichivskyy District Court of Mariupol, 14/12/2006   18906/09 25/03/2009 Viktor Leonidovich KRYTSYN 22/09/1954 Sudak Court, 16/01/2006 as amended by judgment of the Crimea Court of Appeal on 20/09/2006   31367/09 02/06/2009 Vladimir Leonidovich KISHCHENKO 01/10/1953 Novogrodivka Court, 6/05/2006   33523/09 05/06/2009 Vitaliy Ivanovich DEMCHENKO 29/11/1953 Labour Disputes Commission, 17/12/1997   35246/10 12/05/2010 Igor Petrovych GAVRYLYUK 23/06/1952   Olena Petrivna KRYLAS 22/09/1952 1 applicant: 1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 20/03/2008,   2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 07/10/2008   3) Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 02/11/2009   2 applicant: 1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 24/03/2008   2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 23/02/2009   3) Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 19/01/2010   42850/10 21/07/2010 Andriy Petrovych KITURA 02/10/1943 Sykhivskyy District Court of Lviv, 19/10/2007