CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 June 2018 and 3 July 2019   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 5701/11 and 5705/11 Viktor Andriyovych BANDURKA against Ukraine and Lyubov Ivanivna BANDURKA against Ukraine lodged on 14 January 2011 and 14 January 2011 respectively   The Statement of Facts and Questions to the parties is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, has the authorities’ alleged failure to enforce in a timely manner the judgments of 2 October 2009 in the applicants’ favour, as modified on appeal, breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Metaxas v. Greece , no. 8415/02, §   19, 27   May 2004, and Lizanets v. Ukraine , no. 6725/03, §   43, 31 May 2007)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the alleged failure to enforce the judgments?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, do the applicants have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the aforementioned alleged failure to enforce the judgments in a timely manner?