CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8FE61A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1A23316 { width:198.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s9915582F { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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 DECISION Application no. 26570/13 Anatoliy Mykolayovych KUPENKO against Ukraine and 37 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1   December 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are Ukrainian nationals; their personal details are set out in the appended table. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. I. Lishchyna, from the Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On the dates set out in the appendix national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (debtors) to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. The applicants claimed that the judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement. The relevant particular circumstances of the cases are outlined in the appended table. On 20 January 2015 the applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, judgment of 15   October 2009). The respondent Government argued that the applications did not comply with the admissibility criteria of the Convention and invited the Court to declare them inadmissible. The applicants disagreed. COMPLAINTS The applicants, referring mostly to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complained about the delayed enforcement of judgments in their favour. Additionally, several applicants raised other complaints, mainly challenging the alleged unfairness, outcome and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints relying on Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court first considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background. A.     Complaints related to protracted non-enforcement 1.     Application no. 74110/14 and 76098/14 The Court notes that in the application no. 74110/14 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 12 October 2012 quashed the judgment of the Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region dated 29 September 2011 in the applicant’s favour. The applicant did not appeal in cassation. The Court further notes that, after the judgment mentioned above had been quashed, the obligation of the State to enforce it ended. The Court finally notes that the applicant lodged his complaint before the Court on 14 November 2014 and thus, more than six months from the date of the final judgment of the court of appeal. Therefore the applicant’s complaint as to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment adopted by the Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region of 29 September 2011 was raised too late. The Court observes that in the application no. 76098/14 the judgment of the Malynovskyy District Court of Odesa of 17 November 2009 in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 27 April 2012. The Court notes, however, that the applicant lodged his complaint before the Court on 25   November 2014 and thus, more than six months from the date of the judgment’s enforcement. Given the above, the Court declares these applications inadmissible pursuant to Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Applications nos.   43486/13, 44885/13, 70439/13, 71492/13, 72119/13, 75876/13, 77702/13, 80659/13, 3431/14, 13326/14, 14390/14, 16109/14, 16170/14, 16288/14, 30806/14, 34658/14, 71983/14 The Court notes that in the present cases the amounts of the outstanding debt due to the applicants are not higher than EUR 200 and the applicants did not submit any arguments or evidence to suggest that the delay in the payment of such awards had a significant impact on their personal lives. The Court has previously found a lack of “significant disadvantage” in the cases, where delay concerned the payment of a relatively small award: the amount in question was equal to or less than sums up to EUR 200 (see, for example, Svystun v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 58915/16 and two other applications, 3 November 2016). The Court further notes that in the present cases delay in enforcement concerned the payment of monthly allowances and pension supplements that do not constitute the primary source of revenue for the applicants. The Court finds therefore that in present cases the applicants did not suffer any significant disadvantage as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgments. The Court also notes that “respect for human rights”, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require examination of the present complaints on the merits, as the problem of non-enforcement of final decisions has already been addressed in the Court’s pilot judgment against Ukraine adopted in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above and in a number of other cases examined against Ukraine under “the well-established case-law procedure” (see, for instance, Khvorostyanoy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 54552/09 and foll., 25 July 2013; Shchukin and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 59834/09 and foll., 13   February 2014; Shtefan and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos.   36762/06 and foll., 31 July 2014, etc.). Finally, the Court considers that the applicants’ cases were duly considered by domestic tribunals within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) with the decisions favourable to the applicants. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the complaints should be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention. 3.     Applications nos.   1261/14 and 52242/14 The Court notes that the applicants complain of non-enforcement of the final and binding judgments awarding social benefits to them. These judgments were not enforced due to changes in domestic legislation, in particular the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers no.   745. The Court examined similar complaints in the case Velikoda v. Ukraine ( no.   43331/12, § 21, decision of 3   June   2014) and concluded that “the Government’s obligation to ensure enforcement of the judgments ended when the amended legislation was applied to the applicant’s social payments”. It finds no reason for reaching a different conclusion in the present cases. These applications must therefore be declared inadmissible, as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35   §§ 3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. 4.     Applications nos.   26570/13, 31326/13, 43992/13, 71070/13, 72362/13, 77751/13, 78161/13, 2452/14, 6652/14, 7311/14, 12611/14, 15005/14, 57516/14, 63976/14, 65737/14, 78600/14, 70/15 The Court observes that in the present cases the judgments of a monetary award against the State body were enforced within a period which lasted less than one year. It recalls that appropriations for the payment of State debts may cause some delay in the enforcement of judgments from the Government’s budget (see Voytenko v. Ukraine , no.   18966/02, § 42, 29 June 2004). In cases against Ukraine, it has held that short delays of less than a year were not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kornilov and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   36575/02, 7   October 2003). The Court finds no reason to come to a different conclusion in the circumstances of the present cases. These applications must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention as being manifestly ill-founded. B.     Other complaints raised by the applicants Several applicants raised also other complaints. In particular, referring to Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they challenged the outcome, alleged unfairness and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. They also raised other complaints under Articles 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the Convention. However, 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 these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and should be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20   December 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth (if known) Place of residence Nationality Final domestic decision details     26570/13 06/04/2013 Anatoliy Mykolayovych KUPENKO 17/03/1941 Brovary Ukrainian Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region, 12/11/2010     31326/13 19/04/2013 Yuriy Mykolayovych FEDOTENKO 12/12/1957 Mariupol Ukrainian Ordzhonikidzevskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 04/02/2011     43486/13 26/06/2013 Stepan Petrovych KUCHERYAVYY 16/08/1944 Boyarka Ukrainian Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy Local Court of Kyiv Region, 15/04/2011     43992/13 27/11/2012 Mykola Ivanovych OMELCHUK 04/06/1951 Kovel Ukrainian Kovel Local Court of Volyn Region, 22/08/2011     44885/13 05/07/2013 Oleksandr Yosypovych SERGEYEV 23/04/1944 Kyiv Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 14/01/2011, as amended by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08/08/2011 and by Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, 22/03/2013     70439/13 31/10/2013 Valentyn Andriyovych LITOVCHENKO 17/04/1944 Kryvyy Rig Ukrainian Ternivskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig, 13/09/2011     71070/13 31/10/2013 Vyacheslav Alekseyevich LYSENKOV 05/02/1973 Dnipropetrovsk Ukrainian Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 16/07/2002     71492/13 01/11/2013 Valentyna Oleksiyivna RATUSHNA 04/07/1937 Kryvyy Rig Ukrainian Ternivskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig, 04/05/2011     72119/13 07/11/2013 Vasiliy Vasilyevich CHEPURNOY Cherkasy Ukrainian Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 27/01/2012   72362/13 09/11/2013 Vladimir Vasilyevich TSYGANOK 07/01/1950 Kryvyy Rig Ukrainian Ternivskyy Local Court of Kryvyy Rig, 13/08/2010   75876/13 26/11/2013 Petro Mytrofanovych ALEKSYEYEV 17/03/1939 Kherson Ukrainian Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 09/09/2011   77702/13 04/11/2013 Nadiya Ivanivna BEDNOVA 28/12/1938 Kherson Ukrainian Kherson Regional Administrative Court, 23/11/2009   77751/13 11/11/2013 Dmytro Ivanovych KOTLYAR 05/11/1948 Berezan Ukrainian Berezan Local Court of Kyiv Region, 21/06/2010   78161/13 25/11/2013 Mykola Stepanovych PANKRATOV Mariupol Ukrainian Ordzhonikidzevskyy Local Court of Mariupol, Donetsk Region, 14/06/2010   80659/13 05/12/2013 Valentyna Mykhaylivna ANOKHINA 09/10/1937 Kherson Ukrainian 1.     Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson, 01/09/2011   2.     Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 04/02/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 06/03/2012   1261/14 25/12/2013 Sergiy Vasylyovych KOSHKIN 04/07/1953 Novooleksandrivka Ukrainian Synelnykove Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 31/12/2010, as amended by Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 07/06/2011   2452/14 13/12/2013 Nila Oleksiyivna SHEVCHENKO 15/02/1950 Kotsyubynske Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 17/05/2010   3431/14 19/12/2013 Nadiya Vasylivna KIMALOVA 14/08/1938 Kherson Ukrainian Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson, 10/01/2011   6652/14 12/12/2013 Mykola Grygorovych DERID 26/11/1938 Mariupol Ukrainian Prymorskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 04/08/2010   7311/14 12/12/2013 Oleksiy Stepanovych SHKROMADA Ruda Ukrainian Lebedyn Local Court of Sumy Region, 28/02/2011   12611/14 12/03/2014 Viktor Mykhaylovych PARKHOMENKO 04/10/1939 Mariupol Ukrainian Illichivskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 03/04/2009, as amended by Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 14/05/2009   13326/14 17/01/2014 Anatoliy Oleksandrovych POLYANSKYY 29/08/1938 Kherson Ukrainian Kherson Regional Administrative Court, 21/10/2009, as amended by Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, 15/04/2011   14390/14 04/02/2014 Mykola Ivanovych YURCHENKO 18/05/1939 Gostomel Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 17/03/2011   15005/14 07/03/2014 Nina Yakivna ZYUZINA 24/03/1935 St. Krym Ukrainian 1.     Illichivskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 13/04/2009   2.     Illichivskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 24/03/2010   3.     Illichivskyy Local Court of Mariupol, 13/08/2010   16109/14 04/04/2014 Oksana Stepanivna KRASOVSKA 01/10/1939 Cherepyn Ukrainian Tetiyiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 15/11/2010   16170/14 18/04/2014 Mariya Pavlivna KOVALSKA 01/01/1937 Telizhentsi Ukrainian Tetiyiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 12/11/2010   16288/14 02/04/2014 Mariya Vasylivna BURLAKA 01/01/1944 Mykhaylivka Ukrainian Tetiyiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 11/11/2010   30806/14 11/04/2014 Tetyana Valentynivna MOSKALENKO 11/06/1980 Pidgaytsi Ukrainian Lutsk Local Court of Volyn Region, 19/07/2010   34658/14 23/04/2014 Galyna Volodymyrivna PEREVERTUN 31/07/1940 Kherson Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kherson, 19/11/2010   52242/14 11/07/2014 Galyna Yevgenivna MARYNYCH 29/04/1957 Uzyn Ukrainian Bila Tserkva Local Court of Kyiv Region, 11/03/2011   57516/14 10/08/2014 Nataliya Veniaminivna MEZHEVCHUK 05/01/1950 Odesa Ukrainian Prymorskyy Local Court of Odesa, 04/12/2012   63976/14 11/09/2014 Nadiya Oleksiyivna VITCHYNKINA 05/03/1952 Berezan Ukrainian Berezan Local Court of Kyiv Region, 23/12/2009   65737/14 27/09/2014 Lyudmyla Ivanivna MAZURENKO 02/02/1977 Odesa Ukrainian Malynovskyy Local Court of Odesa, 06/11/2013   71983/14 24/10/2014 Mariya Karpivna DUBNYTSKA 04/03/1937 Gostomel Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 31/12/2010   74110/14 14/11/2014 Yuriy Ivanovich DAVYDENKO 25/10/1968 Konotop Ukrainian Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region, 29/09/2011   76098/14 25/11/2014 Bernard Zelmanovich FISHMAN 16/04/1927 Odesa Ukrainian Malynovskyy Local Court of Odesa, 17/11/2009   78600/14 11/12/2014 Nikolay Fedorovich ORLOV 01/01/1949 Odesa Ukrainian Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/11/2010   70/15 06/12/2014 Leonid Vasilyevich TSOKOL 03/01/1951 Odesa Ukrainian Prymorskyy Local Court of Odesa, 17/02/2011