CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCB95FA7E { width:189.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s50597860 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF3B8B73E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s9EC3D244 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sAC160DAD { width:15.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s84D5B762 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s16E05AAF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:25.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sCD3A1FCC { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:25.1pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 510/07 PREOBRAZOVATEL-SERVIS against Ukraine and 331 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7   June   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appendices below, 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 1.     The applicants are Ukrainian nationals and their personal details are set out in the appendices below. 2 .     After the institution of the Convention proceedings the applicants Mr   Mykola Yakovych Burka (application no. 15533/15) and Mr Leonid Fedorovych Lunko (application no. 46873/13) died. Their heirs Mrs   Nataliya Vasylivna Burka and Ms Viktoriya Leonidivna Lunko respectively informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late relatives. 3.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mr I. Lishchyna, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows. 5.     On the dates set out in the appendices the national courts found for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. The applicants claimed that the judgments became binding, but has not been enforced or were enforced after prolonged delays. The relevant circumstances of the cases are outlined in the appendices below. 6.     The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment procedure following the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, judgment of 15 October 2009). 7.     In their observations 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. 8.     The applicants disagreed. COMPLAINTS 9.     The applicants, referring mainly 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 3, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 10.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Standing of the applicants’ heirs in applications no. 15533/15 and no. 46873/13 11.     The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs in applications no.   15533/15 and no. 46873/13 (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). However, reference will still be made to the applicants throughout the ensuing text. C.     Complaints related to protracted non-enforcement Applications set out in Appendix 1 (a)     Application no. 23739/13 12.     The applicant complained about the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Shpola Local Court of Cherkasy Region of 17 May 2011. 13.     As it appears from the copy of the above-mentioned judgment, it was rendered in favour of a certain Mr K whose identity or relationship with the applicant could not be discerned from the documents provided by the latter. The judgment of the same court rendered in the applicant’s favour was also provided, however, the applicant did not raise any complaints with regard to it in the present application. 14.     In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC] , no. 13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008). The applicant failed to substantiate in what way, if any, the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment of 17 May 2011 affected his rights under the Convention. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violations. 15.     It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. (b)     Other applications 16.     The Court has carefully examined the applications and notes that in each case the communicated non-enforcement complaints are inadmissible on the grounds set out in the last column of Appendix 1 which should be understood as follows: (i)     Six months 17.     The respective complaints were lodged more than six months after the end of the situations in which the State could be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgments and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for having been lodged too late. (ii)     Manifestly ill-founded 18.     The following complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded: (1)     complaints about the non-enforcement of judgments which were enforced within a reasonable time (see Soloshenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   3952/04, 15 November 2005); (2)     complaints about the failure of the domestic authorities to continue payments or recalculation of social benefits in the amount fixed by the judgments favourable to the applicants after the amendments to the legislation entered into force on 23 July 2011 (see Velikoda v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   43331/12, § 21, 3 June 2014); and (3)     complaints that the domestic authorities failed to take additional (not ordered under the respective judgments) measures to remedy the alleged violations of the applicants’ rights ( e.g ., the failure to pay recalculated amounts of social benefits under the judgments ordering only recalculation of such social benefits; the failure to pay compensation for the uninhabitable property under the judgments obliging the domestic authorities to put the applicants on the waiting list for receiving such compensation etc.). (iii)     No significant disadvantage 19.     These applications are similar to Svystun v. Ukraine ((dec.), no.   25250/16 and 2 other applications, 3 November 2016) in which the judgment debt was less than equivalent to 200 euros (EUR) and the amount did not constitute the primary source of revenue for the applicant. Therefore, the complaints should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention since the applicants have not suffered a significant disadvantage. (iv)     Substantially the same 20.     The complaints raised in these applications are substantially identical to the ones raised by the same applicants in their previous applications and which have already been adjudicated by the Court. In view of the absence of any relevant new facts in the present applications, they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention as substantially the same. (v)     Ratione personae 21.     In application no. 44255/08 one of the applicant’s complaints concerns the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal of 28 October 2009. In their observations the Government informed the Court that on 9 November 2011 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 28 October 2009 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first instance court. On 28   March 2012 the applicant lodged a request to leave his claims without consideration and the Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv granted his request. 22.     In application no. 49057/14 the applicant complains about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson of 19 July 2012. In their observations the Government submitted that the above mentioned judgment was partially enforced in October 2012. In July 2014 the applicant renounced her claims concerning the enforcement of the remaining unenforced part of the judgment. On 31 October 2014 the Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson accepted the renouncement. 23.     The applicants did not provide any comments as regards the observations of the Government. 24.     The Court notes that under such circumstances the applicants can neither complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the relevant judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of any alleged violations of their Convention rights. It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. Applications set out in Appendix 2 (a)     Applications nos. 49198/13, 54908/13, 63128/13 and 7298/15 25.     The debtors in respect of the judgments at stake are private persons (applications nos. 54908/13 and 63128/13), and private legal entities (applications nos. 49198/13 and 7298/15), for the debts of which the State cannot be held responsible. The State’s responsibility extends no further than the involvement of its bodies in enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , Ponomaryov v. Ukraine , no. 3236/03, § 51, 3 April 2008, Karpenko v. Ukraine , no. 17216/05 and 10 other applications, 30 April 2013). 26.     The Court reiterates that the Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility to challenge before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs’ Service in enforcement proceedings and to claim damages from that Service for delays in payment of the amount awarded (see, for instance, Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443/03, 22   November 2005). In the present cases, the applicants failed to do so. 27.     The Court notes that the applicants cannot be regarded as having exhausted the domestic remedies available to them, and the applications are to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. (b)     Application no. 41679/13 28.     The Government submitted in their observations that the State disposed of all its shares in the debtor in respect of the judgment at issue more than six months before the applicant lodged his application with the Court. After this period the responsibility of the State extended no further than the involvement of State bodies in enforcement proceedings, and the applicant had not challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity in the enforcement of the judgment (see Ponomaryov , cited above, § 51). 29.     The Court notes the observations of the Government, comes to the same conclusions and declares the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. (c)     Application no. 510/07 30.     In their observations the Government informed the Court that the debtor under the judgment at issue became a private legal entity in May   2003 that is more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court. In addition, the Government noted that in January 2004 the Commercial Court of Lugansk Region instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The applicant failed to submit its claims as a creditor under the bankruptcy proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the Commercial Court of Lugansk Region declared that not submitted claims were deemed to be paid off. The applicant’s lawsuit against the State Bailiffs’ Service was rejected by the domestic courts. The Government stated that the State was not responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment after May 2003 and invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible. 31.     Considering the abovementioned the Court comes to the conclusion that the application is to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. (d)     Applications nos. 48413/12 and 70750/12 32.     The Government submitted in their observations that the debtors in respect of the judgments at issue were private legal entities. They maintained that the State was responsible for the non-enforcement in the applicants’ favour only insofar as the State Bailiffs’ Service was involved, while the applicants had not duly challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity in the enforcement of their judgments. They further submitted that the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtors were brought in the domestic courts, but the applicants had not challenged the inactivity of the debtors’ liquidators. The Government maintained that, taking into account the above, these applications were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 33.     The Court notes the observations of the Government, comes to the same conclusions and declares the applications inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. (e)     Application no. 12719/13 34.     The debtor under the judgment at issue was a private company ‘Energovugillya’. Until 30 July 2010 the company was protected from the creditors by the State (the enforcement proceeding against the debtor had to be suspended), as it was included in the Register of fuel and energy enterprises taking part in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the 2005 Act ‘On measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises’. The applicant lodged her application on 6 February 2013, that is more than six months after the date when the company was excluded from the Register and thus after the responsibility of the Government for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment ended. Besides, the Government noted that the judgment was fully enforced on 28   February 2013. 35.     The Court, therefore, rejects the application as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention. (f)     Application no. 48419/13 36.     The applicant complains about the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Bilogirsk Local Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (hereinafter – ‘the Bilogirsk Court’) of 26 May 2008 against a private company. 37.     In their observations the Government state that the applicant challenged actions of the State Bailiffs’ Service before the domestic courts. On 14 June 2011 the Bilogirsk Court found orders on termination of enforcement proceedings unlawful and ordered the State Bailiffs’ Service to take exhaustive measures for the enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment. Under the judgment of the Bilogirsk Court of 23 August 2012 (upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on 29 October 2012) the applicant was awarded damages which were paid within a reasonable time. Therefore the Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible, as the applicant lost his victim status. 38.     As it appears from the documents provided by the parties, the applicant lodged other lawsuits challenging the actions of the State Bailiffs’ Service and claiming damages, however, those further claims were rejected by the domestic courts. 39.     The Court notes that the domestic courts acknowledged the alleged breach of the applicant’s rights and awarded him compensation and therefore the applicant has lost his victim status (see Khaynatskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 12895/08 and foll., § 35, 9 January 2014). Therefore, the Court declares application no. 48419/13 inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), and rejects it pursuant to Article 35 §   4 of the Convention. Applications set out in Appendix 3 (a)     Applications nos. 14444/14, 15441/14, 15944/14, 19279/14, 40927/14, 40958/14 and 41065/14 40.     In their observations the Government informed the Court that the individuals indicated as applicants in the above-mentioned applications died before the applications in their name were lodged with the Court. The dates of death as stated in the death certificates provided by the Government and the dates when the applications (or the first letters, where applicable) were lodged with the Court are outlined in Appendix 3 below. The observations were sent to the addresses indicated on the application forms as those of the applicants or their representatives. The Court received no comments in reply. 41.     The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16   September 1996, §§ 53-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV, and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no. 14102/02, §§ 21 and 24, 10 April 2012, and Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 19 June 2006). 42.     In the present applications the deceased individuals were presented as applicants with full legal capacity, living at that time in Zaporizhzhya (applications nos. 15441/14, 15944/14, 40927/14 and 40958/14), Sumy (applications nos. 14444/14 and 41065/14), and Kruti Gorby, Tarashcha District of Kyiv Region (application no. 19279/14). On the application forms there appear signatures in the fields designated to be signed by the applicants. In the applications, except for no. 19279/14, Mr S.M. Klopkov was named as a representative with the designated fields of the authority forms signed. In addition, as regards application no. 40927/14, the Court received a letter dated 7 July 2014 allegedly signed by Mr Anikanov (who according to the death certificate died on 13 December 2012) with a request to attach additional documents in support of the submitted complaints. 43.     In such circumstances, the Court considers that the application forms were based on the false claims that the applicants were alive and willing to lodge applications with the Court. In addition to the application forms, the authority forms and the letter in application no. 40927/14 bearing signatures of the deceased and issued after their death were necessarily forged. Although it is unclear who exactly sought to deceive the Court and falsified the signatures on the above mentioned documents, the consequence of such misleading procedural manipulations is obviously incompatible with the purpose of the right of individual application (compare, for instance, with Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia , no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015). 44.     That being so, the applications lodged in the name of Ms   Germanchuk, Mr Batsman, Ms Antonets, Ms Kotlyarenko, Mr   Anikanov, Mr Yatchenko and Mr Pugach are abusive for the purposes of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. (b)     Application no. 15778/13 45.     In their observations in the above-mentioned application the Government informed the Court that Mrs   Kitaygorodskaya died before the application in her name was lodged with the Court. 46.     The Court observes that the application and the authority form naming Mr V.P. Kovalenko as a representative of Mrs   Kitaygorodskaya appear to be signed on 15 August 2012. According to the death certificate provided by the Government the applicant died on 21   November 2012. The application in the applicant’s name was lodged by her representative on 10   February 2013. While it is unclear what caused the delay of almost six   months in lodging the application, the Court has no evidence in its possession to suggest that it was not the applicant who signed the application and authorized Mr Kovalenko to be her representative. Nevertheless, the application was lodged after the death of Mrs   Kitaygorodskaya. 47.     The Court notes that an application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Yaşa v. Turkey , no. 22495/93, Commission’s report of 8 April 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI, and Sterjov and Others v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 40160/04, § 14, 16 October 2014). 48.     Therefore, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. D.     Other complaints raised by the applicants 49.     Several applicants also raised 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 3, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention. 50.     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 therefore 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 28   June 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX 1 No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality Relevant domestic decision Reasons for inadmissibility     26046/08 04/05/2008 Yaroslav Vasylyovych KOSTYNYUK 25/05/1960 Pistyn Ukrainian 1) Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 29/12/2005, as amended by Kyiv City Court of Appeal, 20/06/2006 2) Lutsk Local Court of Volyn Region, 22/12/2006 No significant disadvantage     44255/08 07/09/2008 Anatoliy Vasylyovych BILOBRATOV 01/09/1936 Mykolayiv Ukrainian 1) Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv, 06/04/2004 2) Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 28/10/2009 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded 2) Ratione personae     62255/09 28/08/2009 Vitaliy Alekseyevich OSTRIKOV 17/10/1958 Kharkiv Ukrainian Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court, 18/11/2009 Manifestly ill-founded     60180/11 13/09/2011 Sergey Vasilyevich NIKODIM 01/01/1964 Odesa Ukrainian Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, 14/03/2011 Manifestly ill-founded     12179/12 09/02/2012 Oleg Vladimirovich UDOVCHENKO 28/07/1960 Lugansk Ukrainian Leninskyy Local Court of Lugansk, 19/06/2006 Six months     26534/12 23/04/2012 Viktor Ivanovych VASYLCHENKO 12/01/1957 Kagarlyk Ukrainian 1) Kagarlyk Local Court of Kyiv Region, 21/03/2011 2) Kagarlyk Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07/02/2011 1) Manifestly ill-founded 2) Manifestly ill-founded     28441/12 26/04/2012 Oleksandr Anatoliyovych SHUTYAK 10/02/1951 Lviv Ukrainian Lychakivskyy Local Court of Lviv, 19/03/2008 Manifestly ill-founded     73769/12 16/11/2012 Volodymyr Mykolayovych SAZHYN 12/05/1954 Antratsyt Ukrainian Lugansk Circuit Administrative Court, 14/07/2008 Six months and manifestly ill-founded     12537/13 08/02/2013 Oleksandra Petrivna DOMINOVA 17/06/1952 Krasnyy Lyman Ukrainian Krasnyy Lyman Local Court of Donetsk Region, 13/01/2012 Manifestly ill-founded   14792/13 22/02/2013 Borys Yakovych YAROVYY 19/07/1955 Stebliv Ukrainian Korsun-Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 11/07/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   14985/13 08/02/2013 Mariya Mykhaylivna KORZHYLOVA 28/09/1938 Sumy Ukrainian Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy, 07/10/2011 No significant disadvantage   16071/13 17/01/2013 Viktor Vladimirovich LITVISHKO 22/03/1946 Konotop Ukrainian Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region, 14/12/2011 Six months   17528/13 26/02/2013 Oleksandr Semenovych ARSHEVSKYY 20/10/1943 Kyiv Ukrainian Tsentralno-Miskyy Local Court of Makiyivka, 06/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   17540/13 07/02/2013 Oleksandra Fedorivna SHAGA 04/12/1951 Chernigiv Ukrainian Novozavodskyy Local Court of Chernigiv, 18/12/2009 Substantially the same   17723/13 01/03/2013 Oleg Vasylyovych SHCHERBIN 12/11/1959 Truskavets Ukrainian Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Lugansk, 04/12/2007, as amended by Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 20/02/2008 Manifestly ill-founded   18411/13 11/01/2013 Vadym Oleksiyovych PLATOV 31/10/1952 Vasylivka Druga Ukrainian 1) Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 24/05/2011 2) Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 15/04/2011 3) Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 26/10/2009 1) Substantially the same 2) Substantially the same 3) Six months and manifestly ill-founded   20829/13 07/03/2013 Sergiy Oleksandrovych PURDES 22/07/1963 Zaporizhzhya Ukrainian Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy, 21/09/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   20951/13 16/03/2013 Petro Pavlovych SMITYUKH 29/09/1958 Monastyryshche Ukrainian Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal, 18/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   22036/13 20/03/2013 Oleksandr Vasylyovych PETRENKO 11/03/1960 Cherkasy Ukrainian Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 09/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   23117/13 26/03/2013 Inna Anatoliyivna STEPANENKO 02/02/1977 Bila Tserkva Ukrainian Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, 21/09/2011 Manifestly ill-founded   23739/13 28/03/2013 Oleksandr Stanislavovych ROGOZINSKYY 03/10/1962 Maryanivka Ukrainian Shpola Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 17/05/2011 Manifestly ill-founded   23863/13 01/03/2013 Yevgeniya Ivanivna SEVRUK 19/06/1944 Zhytomyr Ukrainian Bogunskyy Local Court of Zhytomyr, 31/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   24718/13 03/04/2013 Yuriy Ivanovych SAKHNO 23/10/1959 Nizhyn Ukrainian Nizhyn Local Court of Chernigiv Region, 22/07/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   25212/13 08/04/2013 Ganna Mykolayivna MARTYNOVA 08/06/1955 Mazurivka Ukrainian Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 18 /03/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   26820/13 15/04/2013 Yuriy Mykhaylovych YERMOLAYEV 07/08/1951 Cherkasy Ukrainian Sosnivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 21/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   28263/13 20/02/2013 Larysa Mykolayivna KUPRIYANCHUK 20/01/1967 Bila Tserkva Ukrainian Bila Tserkva Local Court of Kyiv Region, 17/06/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   29532/13 19/04/2013 Mykola Grygorovych KAPSHUK 01/01/1950 Tulchyn Ukrainian Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 31/05/2011, as amended by Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal, 27/08/2012 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   30506/13 11/04/2013 Mykola Mykolayovych SALKO 05/12/1952 Mykolayiv Ukrainian Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv, 14/12/2006 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   32361/13 10/05/2013 Igor Romanovych MAGMET 20/08/1959 Kolomyya Ukrainian Kolomyya Local Court of Ivano-Frankivsk Region, 14/05/2007 Six months   32613/13 03/05/2013 Oleksandr Viktorovych KORNUS 15/05/1967 Gorodyshche Ukrainian Gorodyshche Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 15/10/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   34928/13 13/05/2013 Grygoriy Yakovych KLYMENKO 20/12/1958 Odesa Ukrainian Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 28/08/2012 Six months   35008/13 22/05/2013 Volodymyr Illich YEVTUSHENKO 24/01/1953 Kyiv Ukrainian Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 16/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   35446/13 20/05/2013 Nataliya Viktorivna PETRENKO 15/01/1955 Kyiv Ukrainian Golosiyivskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 10/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   36476/13 22/05/2013 Mykola Mykolayovych SHARPATYY 17/10/1956 Gorodnya Ukrainian Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 12/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   38371/13 30/05/2013 Galyna Oleksandrivna KRUTAS 08/02/1937 Kherson Ukrainian Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson, 02/07/2009, as amended by Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, 06/07/2011 Six months   39147/13 06/06/2013 Oleksandr Ivanovych BYEDNIN 15/04/1941 Kakhovka Ukrainian 1) Kakhovka Local Court of Kherson Region, 21/03/2001 2) Kakhovka Local Court of Kherson Region, 18/11/2011 1) Six months 2) Six months   39611/13 10/06/2013 Andriy Anatoliyovych VORONKO 07/07/1969 Kyiv Ukrainian Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court, 29/01/2009 No significant disadvantage   40051/13 08/05/2013 Viktor Ivanovych PONEDILOK 17/04/1957 Afrykanivka Ukrainian Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 21/06/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   41311/13 13/06/2013 Svitlana Stepanivna ULRYKH 12/09/1963 Slavutych Ukrainian 1) Slavutych Local Court of Kyiv Region, 04/04/2011 (case no. 2-a-2123/11/1023) 2) Slavutych Local Court of Kyiv Region, 04/04/2011 (case no. 2-a-2122/11/1023) 1) Manifestly ill-founded 2) Manifestly ill-founded   41533/13 18/05/2013 Georgiy Petrovych LEBEDYEV 01/05/1952 Cherkasy Ukrainian Sosnivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 22/10/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   41828/13 19/06/2013 Viktor Stepanovych PEREDERIY 05/02/1954 Semenivka Ukrainian Semenivka Local Court of Poltava Region, 23/07/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   42306/13 18/03/2013 Nina Ivanivna OSYPENKO 28/02/1939 Boyarka Ukrainian Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy Local Court of Kyiv Region, 25/12/2009, as amended by Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   42372/13 20/06/2013 Mykola Andriyovych KYSIL 17/12/1952 Cherkasy Ukrainian Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 13/09/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   43108/13 27/06/2013 Ganna Panasivna KRAVCHUK 02/01/1952 Rivne Ukrainian Rivne Local Court of Rivne Region, 12/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   43787/13 29/06/2013 Valentyna Ivanivna MATSAPURA 15/01/1959 Fastiv Ukrainian Fastiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 26/11/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   44051/13 25/06/2013 Kateryna Oleksandrivna TATARINA 05/04/1944 Kherson Ukrainian 1) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 25/03/2011 2) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 26/07/2011 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded 2) No significant disadvantage   44228/13 26/06/2013 Dmytro Ivanovych STOGNIY 22/12/1936 Kherson Ukrainian Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 25/06/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 05/06/2012 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   46604/13 05/07/2013 Petro Vasylyovych OSKOLOV 20/09/1944 Chernivtsi Ukrainian 1) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 11/12/2008, as amended by Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal, 18/06/2009 2) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 15/03/2010 3) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 30/03/2011 1) No significant disadvantage 2) No significant disadvantage 3) No significant disadvantage   46638/13 10/07/2013 Tetyana Anatoliyivna SHYRSHOVA 25/08/1972 Slobozhanske Ukrainian Zmiyiv Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 01/12/2010, as amended by Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08/04/2011 Six months   46873/13 08/07/2013 Leonid Fedorovych LUNKO 28/08/1943 Kherson Ukrainian 1) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 22/12/2010, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 04/11/2011 2) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 17/05/2011 1) No significant disadvantage 2) Six months and manifestly ill-founded   47034/13 08/07/2013 Ivan Grygorovych ZHUGAN 23/07/1937 Kherson Ukrainian Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 04/08/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/01/2013 Six months   47560/13 08/07/2013 Mykola Ivanovych LOBACH 01/03/1944 Zaporizhzhya Ukrainian Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Zaporizhzhya, 13/04/2011 No significant disadvantage and manifestly ill-founded   48504/13 05/07/2013 Tetyana Stepanivna TRUNOVA 10/12/1935 Kherson Ukrainian Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 27/04/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 10/07/2012 No significant disadvantage   49860/13 20/06/2013 Grygoriy Petrovych GORYACHENKO 26/04/1952 Krasnoarmiysk Ukrainian Krasnoarmiyskyy Local Court of Donetsk Region, 09/12/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   50176/13 26/07/2013 Tamara Vasylivna GUTSOL 10/04/1949 Vinnytsya Ukrainian Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 26/11/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   50198/13 29/07/2013 Viktor Ivanovych BOBOSHKO 17/02/1960 Cherkasy Ukrainian Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 12/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   52213/13 08/08/2013 Volodymyr Pavlovych KHANDOGIN 07/03/1955 Kremenchuk Ukrainian Avtozavodskyy Local Court of Kremenchuk, 11/12/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   52838/13 09/08/2013 Volodymyr Mykhaylovych STOLYARYK 28/06/1955 Pishchanka Ukrainian 1) Pishchanka Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 11/04/2011 2) Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal, 26/06/2013 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded 2) Manifestly ill-founded   53018/13 09/08/2013 Petro Ivanovych STEPANENKO 01/10/1956 Kirovograd Ukrainian Kirovskyy Local Court of Kirovograd, 28/04/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   53611/13 10/08/2013 Viktor Mykolayovych USOLTSEV 06/01/1955 Dniprodzerzhynsk Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 13/01/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   53791/13 12/08/2013 Valentyn Vasylyovych ROMANYUK 30/09/1943 Dniprodzerzhynsk Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 27/01/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   53819/13 08/08/2013 Sergiy Omelyanovych VOLOSHYN 07/03/1972 Dnipro Ukrainian 1) Industrialnyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 27/07/2001 2) Dnipropetrovsk Circuit Administrative Court, 03/04/2012 1) No significant disadvantage 2) Manifestly ill-founded   54646/13 08/08/2013 Mykola Ivanovych BONDARENKO 11/04/1947 Prygozhe Ukrainian Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 20/05/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   54747/13 17/08/2013 Nina Leonidivna AVRAMENKO 05/09/1952 Tagancha Ukrainian Kaniv Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 23/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   54758/13 16/08/2013 Vitaliy Leonidovych OKHRIMENKO 31/08/1963 Cherkasy Ukrainian Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 30/09/2011, as amended by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 19/06/2012 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   54925/13 19/08/2013 Lyubov Ivanivna SKOPYCH 08/08/1958 Pukhivka Ukrainian Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   55472/13 22/08/2013 Mariya Andriyivna KASHTALYAN 10/11/1942 Kyiv Ukrainian Solomyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 23/09/2009 Six months   56136/13 29/08/2013 Mykola Ivanovych RYABTSEV 21/10/1949 Kharkiv Ukrainian Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Kharkiv, 28/12/2010, as amended by Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   56348/13 21/08/2013 Mariya Leontiyivna KOLOMIYETS 14/05/1938 Kyiv Ukrainian Solomyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 27/01/2011, as amended by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08/06/2011 Six months   56419/13 12/08/2013 Anatoliy Ivanovych VLASENKO 21/01/1956 Boryspil Ukrainian Boryspil Local Court of Kyiv Region, 24/11/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   57208/13 28/08/2013 Tetyana Volodymyrivna SVERGUNENKO 14/05/1967 Balashykha Ukrainian Ovruch Local Court of Zhytomyr Region, 02/11/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   57285/13 27/08/2013 Maya Sergiyivna SHAKHOVA 02/12/1937 Kyiv Ukrainian 1) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 07/10/2009 2) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 31/08/2011 1) No significant disadvantage 2) No significant disadvantage   57642/13 30/08/2013 Oleksandr Dmytrovych VYERYOVKIN 08/12/1960 Okhoche Ukrainian Nova Vodolaga Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 23/02/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   58119/13 20/08/2013 Ivan Petrovych KOMPANIYETS 05/06/1959 Stepanky Ukrainian 1) Cherkasy Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 01/06/2011 2) Cherkasy Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 21/01/2011 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded 2) Six months and manifestly ill-founded   59581/13 10/09/2013 Olena Pavlivna NOVIKOVA 15/05/1941 Syeverodonetsk Ukrainian Stakhanov Local Court of Lugansk Region, 16/06/2011, as amended by Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 16/01/2012 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   61256/13 17/09/2013 Ivan Oleksandrovych GRABOVSKYY 09/05/1956 Ivanivka Ukrainian Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 03/06/2009, as amended by Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 23/11/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   62278/13 20/09/2013 Mykola Mykolayovych BOLGAROV 03/03/1960 Kremenchuk Ukrainian Kryukivskyy Local Court of Kremenchuk, 05/07/2010, as amended by Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, 21/02/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   63453/13 25/09/2013 Mykola Petrovych IVANCHENKO 22/06/1952 Fastiv Ukrainian Fastiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 21/02/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   63968/13 23/09/2013 Antonina Vasylivna KOROBEYNIKOVA 02/12/1955 Bila Tserkva Ukrainian Bila Tserkva Local Court of Kyiv Region, 24/03/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   64116/13 01/10/2013 Mykhaylo Valentynovych NOVIKOV 14/01/1944 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 30/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   64418/13 12/09/2013 Olena Boleslavivna POPROTSKA 05/03/1939 Kyiv Ukrainian 1) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 12/04/2011 2) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 23/11/2011 1) No significant disadvantage 2) No significant disadvantage   64677/13 01/10/2013 Yuriy Mykolayovych SOVA 04/05/1948 Velyke Verbche Ukrainian Sarny Local Court of Rivne Region, 12/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   64777/13 01/10/2013 Lyudmyla Petrivna MARCHAK 28/05/1951 Ternopil Ukrainian 1) Ternopil Local Court of Ternopil Region, 02/09/2010 2) Ternopil Local Court of Ternopil Region, 05/11/2012 1) Six months 2) Manifestly ill-founded   65282/13 08/10/2013 Galyna Fedorivna BINYASH 08/03/1957 Kaniv Ukrainian Kaniv Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 30/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   65331/13 05/10/2013 Oleksandr Viktorovych NEVZOROV 23/02/1952 Boyarka Ukrainian Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, 06/11/2012 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   65595/13 26/09/2013 Valentyna Petrivna RURYSHYNA 11/09/1948 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   65900/13 10/10/2013 Petro Ivanovych GEYKO 02/01/1955 Kaniv Ukrainian Kaniv Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 31/03/2010 Six months   66390/13 08/10/2013 Anatoliy Dmytrovych VASKOV 25/07/1936 Dniprodzerzhynsk Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 25/12/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   66391/13 11/10/2013 Mykhaylo Vasylyovych OMELCHUK 22/07/1945 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 10/01/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   66674/13 21/10/2013 Valentyna Yegorivna VORONKEVYCH 05/02/1940 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 13/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   66700/13 14/10/2013 Mykola Volodymyrovych KYRYLYUK 10/05/1936 Vorzel Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 24/09/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   66813/13 14/10/2013 Lyudmyla Adamivna KYRYLYUK 22/09/1936 Vorzel Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 31/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   67392/13 16/10/2013 Mykola Dmytrovych LYTVYNYUK 13/02/1948 Nestervarka Ukrainian Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 12/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   67431/13 19/10/2013 Anatoliy Volodymyrovych KASHPUR 12/07/1960 Gorodnya Ukrainian Gorodnya Local Court of Chernigiv Region, 17/09/2009 Six months   67510/13 15/10/2013 Pavlo Andriyovych CHAYKA 05/09/1968 Kozarovychi Ukrainian Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 09/12/2011 Six months   67610/13 16/10/2013 Liliya Oleksandrivna OSADCHA 21/02/1937 Dniprodzerzhynsk Ukrainian Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 13/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   68067/13 21/10/2013 Valentyna Yegorivna VORONKEVYCH 05/02/1940 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 22/12/2009 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   68416/13 21/10/2013 Gennadiy Petrovych DATSENKO 28/09/1959 Kochetivka Ukrainian Zachepylivka Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 04/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded   68901/13 25/10/2013 Volodymyr Fedotovych KRAVCHUK 25/05/1949 Rivne Ukrainian Rivne Local Court of Rivne Region, 23/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              69930/13 01/11/2013 Nina Ivanivna PERERVA 21/04/1947 Maydanetske Ukrainian Talne Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 14/07/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              70113/13 31/10/2013 Nadiya Andriyivna GULENKO 24/02/1943 Pustovity Ukrainian 1) Myronivka Local Court of Kyiv Region, 16/06/2011 2) Myronivka Local Court of Kyiv Region, 17/06/2011 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded 2) Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71025/13 01/11/2013 Yuriy Volodymyrovych LYAKHOV 10/12/1937 Kharkiv Ukrainian Moskovskyy Local Court of Kharkiv, 15/06/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71036/13 06/11/2013 Vasyl Ivanovych DOYAK 14/04/1964 Ternopil Ukrainian Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal, 22/06/2010 Manifestly ill-founded              71254/13 25/10/2013 Valeriy Vasylyovych RADIONOVSKYY 08/10/1957 Borova Ukrainian Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 09/06/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71275/13 07/11/2013 Zurab Semenovych OKUDZHAVA 27/09/1943 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 22/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71281/13 07/11/2013 Nadiya Anastasiyivna OKUDZHAVA 11/03/1949 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 22/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71282/13 07/11/2013 Nadiya Anastasiyivna OKUDZHAVA 11/03/1949 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 22/12/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71407/13 04/11/2013 Oleksandr Borysovych LYTVYNYUK 12/09/1961 Talne Ukrainian Talne Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 22/07/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              71529/13 04/11/2013 Veronika Mykolayivna MAKYTRENKO 11/09/1942 Irpin Ukrainian Irpin Local Court of Kyiv Region, 22/09/2010 Six months, manifestly ill-founded and no significant disadvantage              71664/13 23/10/2013 Yuriy Nikolayevich DEMOCHKIN 15/06/1954 Kyiv Ukrainian Podilskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 12/04/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              72111/13 31/10/2013 Adalat Suleyman Ogly KERIMOV 19/01/1957 Kremenchuk Ukrainian Kryukivskyy Local Court of Kremenchuk, 11/03/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              72162/13 13/11/2013 Nataliya Yosypivna KISELYOVA 20/12/1958 Izyum Ukrainian Izyum Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 11/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              72219/13 07/11/2013 Vyacheslav Fedorovych OLKHOVYK 22/07/1948 Svesa Ukrainian Yampil Local Court of Sumy Region, 25/01/2010 Manifestly ill-founded              72804/13 14/11/2013 Grygoriy Mykolayovych BURYACHENKO 25/11/1959 Stetsivka Ukrainian Chygyryn Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 22/10/2010 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              72878/13 11/11/2013 Ivan Semenovych SAVCHENKO 30/10/1941 Chernechchyna Ukrainian Okhtyrka Local Court of Sumy Region, 31/05/2011 Six months and manifestly ill-founded              72897/13 05/11/2013 Anatoliy Volodymyrovych FEDORENKO 28/10/1944 Kyiv Ukrainian 1) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 04/08/2010 2) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 09/02/2011 3) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 28/11/2011 1) No significant disadvantage 2) No significant disadvantage 3) No significant disadvantage              72996/13 12/11/2013 Ganna Sergiyivna TYTARENKO 23/09/1941 Kyiv Ukrainian 1) Dniprovskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 10/06/2009 2) Dniprovskyy Local Court of