CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8901/15 Stanislav Antonovych KRUCHYNSKYY against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appendix. The applicants complained under Article   6   §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (relied on expressly or in substance) about the non ‑ enforcement of binding domestic decisions in their favour. The Court gave notice of those complaints to the Ukrainian Government, who submitted their comments or observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicants provided their comments in reply. The applicant in application no. 15922/16 died while the case was pending before the Court. Her son, Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Melnikov, expressed his wish to pursue the application on his late mother’s behalf. The Court notes that in various cases, where applicants died in the course of the proceedings, it took into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Jama   v.   Slovenia , no.   48163/08, §   28, 19   July   2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Therefore, the Court accepts that Mr   Mykola Mykolayovych Melnikov can pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the pilot case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.   Ukraine (no. 40450/04, §§   89-90, 15 October 2009), the Court observed that the problems relating to non-enforcement in Ukraine were structural, large-scale and complex, and that they required the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures, possibly of a legislative and administrative character, involving various domestic authorities. The Court ordered the respondent State to introduce an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies capable of securing adequate and sufficient redress for the non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (ibid., the fifth operative provision of the judgment). In Burmych and Others v. Ukraine ((striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., §   215, 12   October   2017), the Court examined Ivanov -type follow-up applications and reiterated that the issue of the non-enforcement of domestic courts’ judgments against the State or State-controlled bodies comprised large-scale and complex structural problems, owing to the failure of the Ukrainian Government to implement the requisite general measures ordered in Ivanov . The Court adopted a new approach in Ivanov -type follow-up applications – it struck non-enforcement cases out of its list of cases and transmitted them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for processing (ibid., the fourth operative provision of the judgment). However, that judgment concerned solely pecuniary debts owed by the State even though cases about the non-enforcement of non-pecuniary obligations in kind were among those struck out of the list in Burmych and Others . In Safonov and Safonova v.   Ukraine (no. 24391/10, § 51, 18 June 2020), which concerned the non-enforcement of non-pecuniary obligations in kind by a State body, the Court decided not to proceed with striking out that case, reasoning that it was not related to the systemic problems, as identified in Ivanov and Burmych and Others , and required a continued examination. Following Safonov and Safonova , the Court examined several similar cases separately from Burmych -type cases. However, in Ryaska   v.   Ukraine ((striking out), no. 3339/23, §§ 40-44, 10 October 2024), the Court upheld the Burmych approach as far as it concerns cases about the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of pecuniary and non-pecuniary obligations under national court decisions against the State or State-controlled bodies. Having examined all the material submitted to it and given the fact that the domestic courts’ judgments in the present cases were rendered against the State authorities and those judgments remain unenforced, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to take a different approach in addressing the issues raised by the present applications. Accordingly, the Court finds that the present applications should be dealt with in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 219-223 of the Burmych judgment and in paragraph 45 of the Ryaska judgment – they should be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution set out in the Ivanov pilot judgment. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides that Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Melnikov has standing to pursue application no.   15922/16 on behalf of the late applicant, Ms   Mariya Vasylivna Papunova; Decides that the present applications fall to be dealt with in compliance with the obligation deriving from the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009); Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and transmit them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution set out in the above ‑ mentioned Ivanov pilot judgment, including the provision of redress for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, as set out in the fifth operative provision of that judgment. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Date of introduction Case name Applicant Year of Birth Represented by Name of court Date of binding domestic decision Period of non ‑ enforcement / delayed enforcement 1. 8901/15 23/04/2015 Kruchynskyy v.   Ukraine Stanislav Antonovych KRUCHYNSKYY 1956   Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court 19/12/2011 16/01/2012 – pending 2. 15922/16 15/03/2016 Papunova v.   Ukraine Mariya Vasylivna PAPUNOVA born in 1948; died in 2017   Heir: Mykola Mykolayovych MELNIKOV 1966 Volodymyr Mykolayovych CHUFAROV Gagarinskyi District Court of Sevastopol 24/02/2009   Leninskyi District Court of Sevastopol 31/01/2013   Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv 20/07/2021 24/02/2009 – 27/02/2014; 20/04/2015 – pending 3. 58747/19 29/10/2019 Ostapova v.   Ukraine Raisa Ivanivna OSTAPOVA 1939 Oleg Volodymyrovych TARASENKO   Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO Donetsk Circuit Administrative Court 02/08/2018 01/09/2018 – 14/11/2022