CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 25 September 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61221/13 Aleksandr Mironovich FALTS-FEYN against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All six applicants are debtors under domestic courts’ judgments and are banned from leaving Ukraine by the domestic courts upon the motions of the Bailiffs’ Service. They all complain about a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of being restricted in their freedom of movement for their failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria , no.   50/02, 2 July 2009; Gochev v. Bulgaria , no.   34383/03, 26   November 2009; and Khlyustov v.   Russia , no. 28975/05, 11 July 2013). Two of the applicants further complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they cannot respectively: visit his daughter residing in France (application no.   61221/13) and reunite with his wife and son residing in the Czech Republic (application no. 2393/17). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES All applications   Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?   Applications nos. 61221/13 and 2393/17   Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applications concerned:     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   61221/13 12/09/2013 Aleksandr Mironovich FALTS-FEYN 28/06/1950 Mariupol       5170/15 19/01/2015 Oleg Nikolayevich STETSOV 18/08/1969 Dergachi       20561/15 14/04/2015 Anzhela Volodymyrivna PETRAKOVA 08/10/1971 Lviv       2393/17 21/12/2016 Igor Yuriyovych BABYCH 26/09/1959 Poltava   Iryna Pavlivna POPOVA   12489/17 07/02/2017 Mykola Mykolayovych ISKRA 03/10/1965 Korosten   Sergiy Yuriyovych VENGERUK   33705/17 27/04/2017 Oleksandr Anatoliyovych GUPALO 24/03/1966 Kyiv   Sergiy Petrovych KOVALENKO