CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .sA7F570B3 { width:73.88%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE65610BE { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; 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 } .s11ADA21B { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF760864F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D29008 { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s98B497B1 { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6C38EDA8 { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45217B2F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA54C31F { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1377/20 Sergiy Ivanovych KUZIV against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   October 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 are set out in the appendix. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 observations on the merits. The applicants provided their comments in reply. 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 219-23 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 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 13 November 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name Name of court Date of binding domestic decision Period of nonenforcement/ delayed enforcement 1. 1377/20 06/12/2019 Sergiy Ivanovych KUZIV 1960 Yevgen Yuriyovych KUSHNERENKO Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court 10/12/2018 08/04/2019 – pending 2. 1611/20 11/12/2019 Yuriy Oleksandrovych KUKOCHKIN 1956 Yevgen Yuriyovych KUSHNERENKO Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court 17/12/2018 09/04/2019 – pending 3. 30526/20 03/06/2020 Natalya Grygorivna KOVALENKO 1956 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych MASHKOV Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv 07/12/2018 24/12/2019 – pending