FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ANDRIANOVA AND OTHERS v . UKRAINE

( Application no. 10319/04 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 December 2013

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Andrianova and Others v. Ukraine ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Ann Power-Forde, Helena Jäderblom, judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2013 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 10319/04) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 25 Ukrainian nationals (“the applicants”), on 20 February 2004 .

2 . The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev .

3 . On 16 December 2008 the application was communicated to the Gove rnment.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . In the period from January to March 2001 (the exact dates are listed in the appended table ) the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol delivered decisions according to which the State authorities were obliged to pay the applicants various pecuniary bonuses, to which the applicants were entitled as teacher s under the law “On Education” . The decisions became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.

5 . In their observations to the Court the Government, without providing the exact dates, stated that all the relevant decisions in applicants ’ favour were fully enforced from 2005 to 2009.

6 . The applicants confirmed the enforcement, however noted that the enforcement of the judgments started in December 2005 (more than four years from the date when the decisions became final and enforceable).

THE LAW

I. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION INSOFAR AS LODGED BY M r VLADIMIR FEDOTOVICH ANTONOV

7 . In their observations the Government note that one of the applicant s, Mr Vladimir Fedotovich Antonov ( listed in the annexed table under no. 2 ) , died before the application was lodged ( the applicant died on 18 April 2001 while the application was lodged on 20 February 2004). The Government maintain that t he signature of the applicant in the application form was forged and invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases for abuse of right of petition.

8 . In the letter dated 15 February 2004, which, however, arrived at the Court on 9 October 2009 and was written as response to Government ’ s observation of April 2009, Mrs Olga Alekseyevna Timokhina informed the Cou rt that she was the wife of the deceased applicant, Mr Vladimir Fedotovich Antonov , and that she had lodged the application before this Court in his name. She further claimed to be his legal successor and expressed the wish to pursue the application. Mrs Timokhina provided the death certificate of Mr Antonov and other documents in support.

9 . The Court observes that an application may only be rejected as abusive within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention in extraordinary circumstances, such as if an application was deliberately grounded on a description of facts omitting or distorting events of central importance (see, for example, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, §§ 53-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Varbanov v. Bulgaria , no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , Commission decision of 27 June 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86-B, p. 54).

10 . The Court notes that in the initial application Mr Antonov was stated as one of the applicants and t he application form was signed in his name. Not a single document or statement was submitted in relation to the fact that by that time Mr Antonov had already been dead and that someone else was acting as his legal successor. Moreover, in all the letters to the Court (letters dated 23 November 2004, 1 February 2005 and 27 May 2005 ) Mr Antonov was mentioned as one of authors and , as it became clear now, someone else had signed the letters with his signature . Only f ollowing the Government ’ s observations in April 2009 , Mrs Timokhina disclosed her involvement , expressing the wish to maintain the application and acting in her own name .

11 . The Court observes therefore that until October 2009 Mrs Timokhina tried to falsely present that Mr Antonov was still alive and that he acted on his own behalf.

12 . The Court notes that i t is far from expected from an applicant to present in his or her application all possible information on a case. It is their duty, however, to present at least those essential facts which are at their disposal and which , they must be aware , are of significant bearing for the Court to be able to properly assess the case (see Milošević v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 20037/07, 5 July 2011, § 43 ) . Any such failure would not necessarily have to mean that there has been an abuse of the right to petition. Thus, if none of the facts allegedly concealed concerned any offence or any wrongdoing on his or her part, an applicant ’ s failure to present such facts to the Court would not be observed as the abuse of the right to petition (see, for example, Al- Nashif and Others v. Bulgaria , ( dec. ) no. 50963/99, 25 January 2001). However, having regard to the importance of Mrs Timokhina ’ s failures for the proper determination of the present case, in particular the fact that s he had lodged the application on behalf of her deceased husband , acted in his name and failed to inform the Court about her true legal status , the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention. It thus constitutes an abuse of the right of petition, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and rejects the application pursuant to paragraph 4 of that Article .

I I. STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION INSOFAR AS LODGED BY M s KRAVCHUK, Ms KUZNETSOVA AND Ms YAVORSKAYA

13 . By letter dated 15 February 2004, which, however, arrived at the Court on 9 October 2009 and was written in response to the Government ’ s observation s of April 2009, the applicants stated that Ms Glybina , Ms Kovalenko , MS Kravchuk , Ms Kuznetsova , Ms Nosenko and Ms Yavorskaya (listed in the annexed table under the nos. 6, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 25) no longer wished to maintain the application.

14 . On 30 November 2009 t he Government invited the Court to strike out the application insofar as lodged by those applicants .

15 . As the letter from the applicants did not contain the signatures of the applicants wishing to withdraw their complaints , they were contacted by the Court.

16 . By letter dated 21 June 2013 , sent b y registered post, the six applicants mentioned in § 13 above, were invited to inform the Court by 22 July 2013 whether they wished to maintain the application . The applicant s ’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not i ntend to pursue the application .

17 . Applicants Ms Glybina , Ms Kovalenko and Ms Nosenko ( listed in the annexed table under nos. 6, 11 and 18 ) expressed the wish to further maintain the application. However, no response has been received from Ms Kravchuk , Ms Kuznetsova and Ms Yavorskaya ( applicants listed in the annexed table under nos. 13, 14 and 25 ) .

18 . The Court considers that, in these circumstances, applicants Ms Kravchuk , Ms Kuznetsova and Ms Yavorskaya ( listed in the annexed table under nos. 13, 14 and 25 ) may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application s , within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the application insofar as lodged by them.

19 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application insofar as lodged by Ms Kravchuk , Ms Kuznetsova and Ms Yavorskaya ( the applicants listed in the annexed table under nos. 13, 14 and 25 ) out of the list.

I II . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

20 . T he remaining applicants complained about the lengthy non ‑ enforcement of the judgments given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

21 . The Court notes that the complaints of the se ap plicants are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

22 . The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants ’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.

23 . Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine , no. 40450/04 , § §§ 56-58 and 66-70 , 15 October 2009), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the decisions in the se applicants ’ favour. It also considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

25 . In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03 and 89 other applications, § 24, 6 June 2013; Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65656/11 and 249 other applications, § 19, 20 June 2013; Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 164 other applications, § 24, 20 June 2013) to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants listed in the annexed table (with the exception of Mr Antonov , Ms Kravchuk , Ms Kuznetsova and Yavorskaya ) . This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.

26 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to strike the application insofar as lodged by Mr Vladimir Fedotovich Antonov , Ms Lyudmila Danilovna Kravchuk , Ms Olga Vladimirovna Kuznetsova and Ms Aleksandra Ivanovna Yavorskay a out of its list of cases ;

2. Declares admissible the complaints of the remaining applicants under Article 6 § 1, Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints;

3 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

4 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

5 . Holds

(a) that within three months the respondent State is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant listed in the annexed table or his or her esta te (with exception of Mr Vladimir Fedotovich Antonov , Ms Lyudmila Danilovna Kravchuk , Ms Olga Vladimirovna Kuznetsova and Ms Aleksandra Ivanovna Yavorskay ) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts , which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2013 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX

Name of the applicant

Date of birth

Date of the decision in applicant ’ s favour adopted by the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol

Natalya Vladislavovna

ANDRIANOVA

born on 15/02/1958

14 March 2001

Vladimir Fedo t ovich

ANTONOV

born on 26/10/1940

28 February 2001

Nadezhda Nikolayevna

BLOKHINA

born on 24/09/1945

14 February 2001

Svetlana Nikolayevna

VOLOSOVICH

born on 02/12/1942

14 February 2001

Olga Aleksandrovna

GOMULINA

born on 01/09/1955

14 March 2001

Natalya Vitalyevna

GLYBINA

born on 14/07/1960

12 March 2001

Lyudmila Pavlovna

DVORNIK

born on 10/03/1944

12 March 2001

Irina Glebovna

DYOMINA

born on 09/02/1957

12 March 2001

Yelena Ivanovna

DYNTU

born on 09/10/1960

12 March 2001

Olga Nikolayevna

ISHCHENKO

born on 17/05/1956

28 February 2001

Valentina Petrovna

KOVALENKO

born on 25/09/1935

28 February 2001

Aleksandr Osherovich

KORZHENEVICH

born on 17/08/1947

14 February 2001

Lyudmila Danilovna

KRAVCHUK

born on 06/06/1937

14 February 2001

Olga Vladimirovna

KUZNETSOVA

born on 20/07/1971

23 August 2001

Valentina Petrovna

LEUSENKO

born on 28/01/1968

4 October 2001

Tamara Timofeyevna

LOBACHYOVA

born on 15/12/1960

28 February 2001

Galina Anatolyevna

OSOCHENKO

born on 27/09/1966

14 February 2001

Olga Ivanovna

NOSENKO

born on 28/08/1943

12 March 2001

Marina Vladimirovna

ORLOVA

born on 30/03/1968

14 February 2001

Tatyana Vladimirovna

PENEDZHI

born on 29/04/1953

4 January 2001

Lidiya Afanasyevna

PODGAYCHENKO

born on 30/06/1945

12 March 2001

Valentina Nikolayevna

SUSHENKO

born on 03/01/1949

14 February 2001

Galina Vasilyevna

TRETYAKOVA

born on 02/06/1934

14 February 2001

Valentina Petrovna

SHVEDKINA

born on 14/04/1940

12 March 2001

Aleksandra Ivanovna

YAVORSKAYA

born on 19/03/1939

28 February 2001