Lexploria

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF VINNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 13977/05 and 45 other applications )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

7 November 2013

This judgment is final . It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Vinnik 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 15 October 2013 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in 46 applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals, one Lithuanian national (application no. 74608/10) and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).

2 . In applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Cour t. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications.

3 . The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy .

4 . The applications listed in the Appendi x to the present judgment were communicated to t he Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.

5 . On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in seventeen applications. The Government requested the Court to strike the applications concerned out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the declarations. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government ’ s request.

6 . The Lithuanian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of th e applicant in application no. 74608/10 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

7 . On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and labour disputes commissions delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.

8 . Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

9 . In view of the similarity of the applications set out in the Appendix in terms of the principal legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them .

II. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION No. 36411/06 AS REGARDS THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH APPLICANTS

10 . In application no. 36411/06 the applicants, members of the same family, complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of three judgments given exclusively in favour of the first a pplicant, Mr Petro Stanislavovych Abramov . The other applicants do not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in their favour and therefore they neither can complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of the alleged violations of their Convention rights .

11 . It follows that insofar as application no. 36411/06 has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. This part of the application should therefore be declared in admissible in accordance with Article 35 § § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

I II . THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 AND 31562/13

12 . The Court considers that the applicants ’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants ’ stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine , no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).

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

13 . The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour , as specified in the Appendix, and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. Expressly or in substance they relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

14 . The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 1 3 above ) lodged by the applicants listed in the Appendix (by the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) 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.

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

16 . 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 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.

V . OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

17 . Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention , which the Court has examined carefully. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

18 . It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

V I . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19 . 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.”

20 . 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 ( to the first applicant in application no. 36411/06). This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.

21 . The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.

22 . 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 join the applications set out in the Appendix ;

2. Declares application no. 36411/06 partly in admissible insofar as it has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants ;

3. Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix (the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) under Article 6 § 1 and 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 admissible and the remainder of the ir application s inadmissible;

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

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

6. Holds

(a) that within three months the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants ’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant (or his or her estate) listed in the Appendix (to the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) 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 7 November 2013 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips BoÅ¡tjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. and date of introduction

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Relevant domestic decision

13977/05

15/02/2005

Tatiana Leonidovna VINNIK

03/10/1958

Lysychansk

1) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise " Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod ", 15/05/2003

2) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise " Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod ", 02/11/2004

36411/06

18/08/2006

Petro Stanislavovych ABRAMOV (“the first applicant” ) [1]

06/01/1968

Poltava

1) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 12/08/2003, as amended by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 24/03/2004

2) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 25/05/2005

3) Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 16/06/2005

23939/07

16/05/2007

Kostyantyn Volodymyrovych LOGUTOV

25/06/1976

Kyiv

Vyshg orod Court, 17/03/2005

55215/07

03/12/2007

Iryna Yuriyivna SHAPARENKO

08/12/1957

Tarashcha

Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, 21/10/2008

3001/08

04/01/2008

Inna Valeryivna MANOYLYK

07/11/1976

Chernigiv

Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09/07/2004

7932/08

28/01/2008

Valentina Ivanovna TARASOVA

13/10/1954

Yenakiyeve

Donetsk Regional Commercial Court, 23/07/2003 (no. 33/221?)

9091/08

05/02/2008

Vladimir Ivanovich BONDAR

09/06/1934

Odesa

Malynovskyy District Court of Odesa, 03/06/2003

34957/08

04/07/2008

Kateryna Dmytrivna KOLESNIKOVA

23/09/1950

Poltava

Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, 24/10/2006

42506/08

14/08/2008

Nina Mykolayivna KLINCHUK

28/10/1958

Korosten

Korosten Court, 24/02/2006

48488/08

15/07/2008

Vitaliy Pavlovych ONYSHCHAK

19/04/1952

Khrystynivka

Uman Court, 03/04/2008

17140/09

16/01/2009

Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO

05/01/1949

Vinnytsya

1) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 23/11/2006

2) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 12/11/2008

3) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/12/2006

4) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya , 26/06/2007

(case no. 2-1772)

5) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007

(case no. 2-a-824-07)

6) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/07/2008

18168/09

22/03/2009

Sergey Panasovich IVASHCHENKO

20/10/1916

Andreyevo -Ivanovo

Mykolayivskyy District Court of the Odesa Region, 03/10/2007

20748/09

01/04/2009

Nikolay Ivanovich CHAYENKO

30/08/1947

Leninske

Sverdlovsk Court, 17/04/2007

23273/09

17/04/2009

Anatoliy Ivanovych MATSNEV

06/10/1950

Vinnytsya

Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 30/03/2007

23366/09

04/04/2009

Sergiy Viktorovych KISELYOV

28/09/1965

Vatutine

Vatutine Court, 03/08/2007, quashed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 20/05/2010

23702/09

16/04/2009

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SKUDIN

07/08/1986

Mariupol

Prym orskyy District Court of Mariupo l, 30/05/2008

30370/09

26/05/2009

Viktor Mykolayovych KOVAL

07/05/1954

Oleksandriya

1) Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/07/2008

2) Oleksandriya Court, 10.04.2008.

32650/09

26/05/2009

Sergey Nikolayevich PELIKHOS

15/06/1971

Makiyivka

Chervonogvardiyskyy District Court of Makiyivka, 12/04/2007

46819/09

19/08/2009

Leonid Ivanovych GRYGORUK

23/04/1956

Kyiv

Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv, 12/02/2008 (as amended by the Higher Administrative Court

on 26/07/2011)

62241/09

03/11/2009

Daniya Galimzhanovna SHAKIRZYANOVA

24/02/1954

Zhuravli vka

Shakhtarsk Court, 27/12/2005

2831/10

16/12/2009

Valentina Georgiyevna OVCHINNIKOVA

23/11/1932

Mykolayi v

Tsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv, 12/07/2007

4855/10

06/01/2010

Mikhail Mefodyevich GRIGORYEV

27/05/1951

Lugansk

Artemi vskyy District Court of Lugansk, 13/10/2008

4862/10

06/01/2010

Vladimir Fedorovich DUDENKO

22/04/1951

Lugansk

Artemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 10/11/2008

25288/10

23/04/2010

Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SHMULYA

12/02/1945

Koroviy Yar

Krasnyy Lyman Court, 17/08/1999

25762/10

23/04/2010

Vasyl Ivanovych TYSHCHENKO

04/05/1950

Koroviy Yar

Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003

28839/10

07/05/2010

Iryna Myroslavivna CHAYKOVSKA

22/08/1981

Ternopil

Ternopil Court, 11/05/2009 (date stated in the text of the judgment 11/06/2009)

42011/10

13/07/2010

Nina Panteleymonovna ASTAPENKO

01/01/1939

Tsyurupynsk

Tsu y rupinsk Court, 29/03/2000

46017/10

26/07/2010

Mykhaylo Mykolayovych SIRENKO

19/11/1957

Selydove

Sylidove Court, 17/05/2004

48219/10

02/08/2010

Petr Stepanovich TRIFONOV

06/02/1953

Kiliya

1) Kiliya Court, 28/02/2007

2) Kiliya Court, 28/08/2002

3) Kiliya Court, 10/02/2000

51820/10

20/07/2010

Aleksandr Ivanovich PODOPRIGORA

15/12/1957

Kryvyy Rig

Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 11/07/2008 as amended by judgment of the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 22/06/2009

64871/10

26/10/2010

Yelena Aleksandrovna BELOCHENKO

24/05/1926

Sevastopol

Kotovsk Court, 27/05/2008, quashed by the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 01/06/2011

68156/10

01/07/2010

Ivan Tymofiyovych BAVINOV

28/10/1934

Kremenchuk

Avtozavodskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 04/09/2003

68607/10

05/11/2010

Larisa Fedorovna KOLESNIKOVA

03/04/1951

Mariupol

Novoazovsk Court, 07/07/2006

69438/10

09/11/2010

Ruslan Yuriyovych LYAKH

13/08/1966

Kolomy ya

Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/11/2006

74338/10

20/11/2010

FPK GROSS OOO

Kharkiv

Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 21/04/2000

74608/10

07/12/2010

Yevgeniy Stepanovich UGLEV

23/07/1952

Cherkasy

Sosnovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 11/02/2008

572/11

12/12/2010

1) Volodymyr Mykolayovych OLKHOVSKYY

28/01/1981

Poltava

2) Olena Oleksandrivna OLKHOVSKA

28/01/1981

Poltava

Applicant 1

Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009

Applicant 2

Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009

656/11

20/12/2010

Viktor Pavlovich ZAKHAROV

06/09/1950

Kri penskiy

1) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005;

2) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005

768/11

13/12/2010

Magdalina Vasilyevna LADZHUN

20/08/1949

Mukachevo

Zakarpattya Regio nal Court of Appeal, 14/07/2005

1205/11

22/12/2010

Ivan Prokofyevich SKREBTSOV

02/11/1949

Lugansk

1) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 20/11/2007, as amended by the Higher Administrative Court, 22/07/2010

2) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 25/11/2008

1503/11

25/12/2010

Nataliya Viktorivna ARKHYPOVA

20/10/1970

Lysychansk

Lysychansk Court, 15/02/2005

1677/11

26/12/2010

Nataliya Nikolayevna BACHKALOVA

14/06/1953

Poltava

1) Poltava Circuit Administrative Court, 08/10/2008

2) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 03/08/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15/05/2008

3) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 02/11/2009

2491/11

29/12/2010

IBRIS, TOV

Dnipropetrovsk

Kyiv Commercial Court 27/02/2006 (amended on 19/04/2006 by the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal and on 31/01/2007 by the Higher Administrative Court)

4510/11

10/01/2011

Vladimir Alekseyevich POPOV

04/01/1944

Lugansk

Kamyanobridskyy District Court of Lugansk, 24/06/2009

6638/11

15/01/2011

Oleksandr Onysymovych KUDLAYENKO

18/01/1955

Vinnytsya

1) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 21/12/2006

2) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/04/2007

31562/13

24/02/2010

Anatoliy Sydorovych PASTUSHENKO

08/09/1947

Donetsk

Kirovskyy District Court of Donetsk, 09/12/2008

[1] . Second, third and fourth applicants (inadmissible): Mariya Leontiyivna ABRAMOVA, Olga Petrivna ABRAMOVA, Sofiya Petrivna ABRAMOVA