8.  The applications in the present case concern prolonged non‑enforcement of domestic final judicial decisions. They raise issues similar to those examined in the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009; hereinafter “Ivanov” or “the Ivanov judgment”). They are part of a group of 12,143 Ivanov-type follow-up applications (hereinafter also referred to as “Ivanov‑type cases”). 9.  Accordingly, before providing a description of the relevant facts and proceeding to the examination of the applicants’ Convention grievances in the present case, the Court considers it necessary to present the procedure hitherto adopted in applications concerning non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions in Ukraine. 10.  Prior to the adoption of the Ivanov pilot judgment the Court had dealt with a number of cases concerning the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions in Ukraine. The first decision on this issue was rendered in the case of Kaysin and Others v. Ukraine ((friendly settlement), no. 46144/99, 3 May 2001). Even though the case was settled by the parties and the applicants received the sums indicated in the friendly settlement agreement, the general issue of non‑enforcement remained unresolved largely owing to the lack of funds of the State entities, State-owned or State‑controlled debtors (hereinafter “State debtors”). Subsequent cases concerning non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions related to payments of salaries and allowances to military servicemen, employees of the mining companies, judges, school teachers, debts of municipalities or State hospitals, State-owned banks, State-owned enterprises and the Cabinet of Ministers (see, among many other examples, the judgments in the cases of Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004, Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, 27 July 2004, Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04 and 3 others, ECHR 2006‑VI (extracts), Belanova v. Ukraine, no. 1093/02, 29 November 2005, Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, 15 December 2005, Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, 20 July 2004, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, 18 January 2005). 11.  As a result of an increasing number of applications concerning prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions in Ukraine, the Court decided to have recourse to the pilot judgment procedure and selected the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (see paragraph 8 above) as representative of this problem. For the facts of this case reference is made to paragraphs 8-20 of the pilot judgment. 12.  In its Interim Resolution of 6 March 2008, the Committee of Ministers had already recognised the existence of a structural problem (see Ivanov, cited above, § 38, see also paragraph 124 below). 13.  In its pilot judgment of 15 October 2009 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final judicial decisions. The Court noted that the delays had been caused by a combination of factors, including the lack of budgetary funds, the bailiffs’ omissions and shortcomings in the national legislation, as a result of which Mr Ivanov and other applicants in a similar situation were unable to have the judgments enforced (see Ivanov, cited above, §§ 83-84). All those factors had been within the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and thus Ukraine was fully responsible for such non-enforcement (ibid. § 85). The Court further found that there had been no remedy at national level satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov’s complaints about the non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour (ibid. §§ 66-70). 14.  Under Article 46, the Court held that the Ivanov case concerned two recurring problems: (a) the prolonged non-enforcement of final domestic decisions and (b) the lack of an effective domestic remedy to deal with it. These problems lay behind the violations of the Convention found by the Court since 2004 in over 300 cases concerning Ukraine. The Ivanov case demonstrated that these problems had remained without a solution despite the Court’s clear rulings urging Ukraine to take appropriate measures to resolve those issues (see Ivanov, cited above, §§ 73, 74 and 83). 15.  In view of the fact that approximately 1,400 similar applications against Ukraine were pending before the Court at that time (ibid. § 86), the Court held in the relevant operative provisions of its judgment as follows:
“... 4.  ... that the [violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found in the case] originated in a practice incompatible with the Convention which consists in the respondent State’s recurrent failure to comply in due time with domestic decisions for the enforcement of which it is responsible and in respect of which aggrieved parties have no effective domestic remedy; 5.  ... that the respondent State must set up without delay, and at the latest within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, 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, in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law; 6.  ... that the respondent State must grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants whose applications pending before the Court were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court before the delivery of the present judgment or will be communicated further to this judgment and concern arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible, including where complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised; 7.  ... that pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases in which the applicants raise arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State is responsible, including cases in which complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare any such case inadmissible or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention;
...”
In the event of the State’s failure to adopt general remedial measures, the Court stated that it “will have no choice but to resume the examination of all similar applications pending before it and to take them to judgment so as to ensure effective observance of the Convention” (ibid. § 100). The Court decided to adjourn proceedings in respect of all new applications lodged after delivery of the pilot judgment (ibid. § 97). As regards applications lodged prior to the delivery of the judgment, it decided that it would give notice of them to the Government and adjourn adversarial proceedings in them. Cases already communicated but undecided on the merits would likewise be adjourned for one year from the date on which the judgment had become final (ibid. § 98). Finally, as regards the application of Article 41 in the case, the Court held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant the outstanding debt under the domestic judgments and 174 euros (EUR) to cover inflation linked adjustments in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (ibid. §§ 106‑107 and the eighth operative provision). 16.  In a letter of 27 January 2010 the Court informed the Ukrainian Government of its intention to communicate under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court all Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court on the date of delivery of the Ivanov pilot judgment of 15 October 2009 which became final on 15 January 2010 (see point of the 6 operative provision and paragraph 15 above). 17. On 11 February 2010 the President of the Fifth Section accordingly decided, under the aforementioned Rule, to communicate the cases concerned to the respondent Government for information and possible action and, at the same time, to adjourn them formally for a period of one year from the date on which the judgment had become final (i.e. until 15 January 2011). 18.  By December 2010 the Government had submitted friendly settlement proposals and unilateral declarations in 372 cases. These cases were struck out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, following the applicants’ acceptance of friendly settlement proposals or the Court’s acceptance of the Government’s unilateral declarations. 19.  On 10 December 2010 the Government requested a one-year extension of the time-limit fixed in the pilot judgment in order to settle pending cases and to adopt the required general measures at domestic level. 20. On 18 January 2011 the Court decided to grant the Government’s request in part and to extend the time limit until 15 July 2011. 21.  On 13 July 2011 the Government requested a further extension of six months. They also submitted friendly settlement proposals and unilateral declarations in nearly 1,000 cases. The Court eventually decided to strike 347 of these cases out of its list of cases. 22. On 6 September 2011 the Government’s second request for an extension of the time-limit was refused. The Court considered that it fell to the Committee of Ministers to find the most appropriate and expedient means to bring about the necessary reforms in Ukraine as part of the process of supervising the execution of the pilot judgment. The question of further procedure in cases raising similar issues was adjourned and all such cases were put on hold. 23.  On 21 February 2012 the Court examined the situation in about 2,500 follow-up cases pending before it. While a number of cases had been struck out of its list following either a friendly settlement agreement or acceptance of a unilateral declaration, no settlement had been proposed in some 700 communicated cases. In the meantime, since 1 January 2011, approximately 1,000 further similar applications had been lodged with the Court. 24.  Referring to its warning in the pilot judgment (see Ivanov, § 100 and paragraph 15 above) that in the event of a failure to adopt the necessary general remedial measures at national level it would have no choice but to take pending applications to judgment, the Court decided to resume its examination of follow-up applications. It further expressed the hope that the Ukrainian authorities would continue cooperating with the Committee of Ministers in order to implement the pilot judgment without delay and with due regard to the relevant recommendations, resolutions and decisions of that body. 25.  On 5 June 2012, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted new legislation, namely “the Act on State Guarantees concerning execution of judicial decisions with amendments” (Закон України “Про гарантії держави щодо виконання судових рішень”; “the 2012 Act”). The 2012 Act, which was amended on two occasions, namely on 15 May 2013 and 19 September 2013, introduced a procedure whereby the debts due under the domestic court judgments were to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine. It required applicants to apply to the State Treasury for such payments (see also paragraphs 103-104 below). 26.   Despite the introduction of a new remedy under the 2012 Act, as from the end of 2013 the influx of Ivanov type cases significantly increased. 27.  On 3 February 2015 the Court gave notice to the Ukrainian Government of Filipov and 3 other applications (no. 35660/13), where the applicants complained that the remedy introduced by the 2012 Act was ineffective. 28.  In the meantime, on 3 July 2012, the Court had adopted its judgment in Kharuk and Others v. Ukraine, ([Committee] no. 703/05, 26 July 2012), whereby it found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of prolonged non‑enforcement of final judicial decisions in Ukraine in respect of a group of applicants for the first time. That judgment concerned 116 applications. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention on just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 for delays of up to three years and EUR 3,000 for delays exceeding three years. 29.  In accordance with the Court’s decision to resume examination of pending cases (see paragraphs 23-24 above), follow-up applications were communicated to the Government in groups. The Government were invited to submit grouped unilateral declarations acknowledging the violations of the Convention and proposing just satisfaction for any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage in line with the awards in Kharuk and Others. They were informed that if they failed to submit such unilateral declarations, the cases would be processed by way of similar grouped judgments. 30.  In 2013 the Court communicated 2,750 Ivanov-type applications to the Ukrainian Government and rendered judgments or decisions in 2,459 Ivanov‑type cases. 31.  In sum, the majority of the Ivanov-type cases which had been lodged with the Court before 2013 had been processed by way of judgments or decisions. 32.  As from 20 June 2013 the Court adopted a policy in Ivanov-type cases of awarding fixed-rate sums of EUR 2,000 for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. As regards pecuniary damage, it also held that “the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable” (see, among other authorities, Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 163 other applications, §§ 24-25 and the sixth operative provision, 20 June 2013). 33.  On 3 June 2014 the Court declared inadmissible the application in Velikoda v. Ukraine (no. 43331/12). The applicant alleged a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the fact that, following a final judgment in the applicant’s favour ordering the national authorities to pay a social benefit, legislation had entered into force drastically reducing the amounts of the social payments in question (Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution no. 745). 34.  The Court held, among other things, that the relevant legislative measures were not unreasonably disproportionate having been adopted as a result of economic policy considerations and the financial difficulties faced by the State. 35.  Following the Velikoda leading decision, approximately 5,600 cases that had previously been classified as Ivanov-type were declared inadmissible. 36.  On 2 September 2014 the Court adjourned its examination of Ivanov-type cases for one year as a result of the sharp increase in the number of new applications lodged (in January 2014 approximately 6,000 such applications were pending and by September the number had increased to 8,200). The Court decided to reconsider the situation within a period of six months. 37.  On 20 January 2015 the Court revisited its decision of 2 September 2014 to adjourn the Ivanov-type cases, and decided to resume its examination of these applications. In January 2015 the Court communicated a group of 5,000 such cases to the Ukrainian Government (see Samoylenko and 4,999 Others, nos. 11212/08 - 2803/15). 38.  In view of the large number of communicated cases, the Government asked the Court to allow them to submit observations in groups of 250 cases or a maximum of 500 cases per month starting from 23 May 2015. 39.  On 14 April 2015 the Court allowed the Government to submit observations in 250 cases per month, starting from 23 May 2015. 40.  Between 22 May 2015 and 26 February 2016 the Government submitted unilateral declarations proposing to pay applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage, together with an undertaking to enforce the domestic judgments, in 2,234 cases which had been communicated in January 2015 as part of the Samoylenko and 4,999 others group. 41.  On 16 June 2015 the Court examined the terms of the unilateral declarations submitted by the Government on 22 May 2015 in a group of 340 applications and decided that the above amount was sufficient taken together with the Government’s undertaking. Subsequent to this decision, 2,041 applications were struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
Following the Chamber’s relinquishment of jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in the present applications (see paragraph 5 above), the Government were informed that the Court would not deliver further judgments in the Ivanov-type cases pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber. Consequently, the Government ceased submitting unilateral declarations. 42.  The Court has received letters from some applicants complaining that the Government had failed to honour their undertakings in the unilateral declarations on the basis of which the Court had struck the applications in question out of its list of cases. Moreover, in a significant number of cases which the Court had disposed of by means of a judgment, the applicants wrote back complaining that the Government had failed to enforce those judgments. Such complaints were transmitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments (the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law) for action. 43.  According to the statistical information in the Court’s possession on the date of delivery of the present judgment, there are 12,143 Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court, 7,641 of which have already been communicated to the Government. The available data shows that since 3 July 2012, when the Court introduced the fast-track procedure for grouped judgments and decisions, the Court has examined and disposed of 14,430 Ivanov-type cases, in particular:
–  Judgments were delivered in 3,491 cases;
–  Inadmissibility decisions were given in 289 cases;
–  Strike out decisions following friendly settlement were adopted in 1,103 cases;
–  Strike out decisions following unilateral declarations were adopted in 1,233 cases;
–  Strike out decisions for other grounds were adopted in 40 cases;
–  Inadmissibility decisions were rendered by Single Judge in 8,274 cases. 44.  A total of about 29,000 Ivanov-type applications have been submitted to the Court since the first application in 1999.
Since the beginning of 2016 the Court has continued to receive a large number of such applications - over 200 per month. 45.  The applicant lives in the village of Olenychi, Ovruch District, Zhytomyr Region, Ukraine. She resides and works in an area of radioactive contamination and is entitled under the national law to various special social welfare benefits for persons who suffered from the Chernobyl disaster. 46.  In 2009 she instituted proceedings in the Ovruch Local Court of Zhytomyr Region (the Ovruch Court) against the Ovruch Labour and Social Welfare Department claiming arrears in social payments under the Chernobyl Victims’ Status and Social Security Act. 47.  On 24 June 2009 the Ovruch Court ruled partly in her favour. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 6 July 2009. On the same day the Ovruch Court issued a writ of execution. 48.  On 10 August 2009 the State Bailiffs Service of the Zhytomyr Regional Department of Justice instituted enforcement proceedings. Despite a number of actions undertaken by the bailiffs the judgment remains unenforced. 49.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in her case. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies to speed up the enforcement of the above judgment. 50.  The applicant, who lives in Zhytomyr, is a former Chernobyl relief worker. Since March 2010 he has a second degree disability related to this work. 51.  In October 2010 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr (the Bogunskyy Court) against the Bogunskyy District Department of the Pension Fund, seeking a higher pension. 52.  On 20 June 2011 the Bogunskyy Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 1 July 2011. 55.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the State’s failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case. 56.  The applicant, who lives in Kremenchuk, is a former Chernobyl relief worker. Since July 2009 he has a second degree disability related to this relief work. 57.  On 16 August 2010 the Kryukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk (the Kryukivskyy Court) ordered the Kryukivskyy Labour and Social Welfare Department to recalculate the amount owed in respect of his participation in the Chernobyl relief work and to pay the applicant a lump sum. 58.  On 7 February 2011 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 16 August 2010. The judgment became final. 59.  On 16 September 2011 the Poltava Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. This decision was challenged by the applicant. 60.  By decision of 15 March 2012 the Kryukivskyy Court ruled in his favour and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to resume the enforcement proceedings. This decision was confirmed on appeal on 25 April 2012. 61.  On 19 July 2012 the Poltava Bailiffs’ Service once again terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 5 October 2012 they rejected the applicant’s request to renew them. 62.  On 28 February 2013, on the applicant’s complaint, the Kryukivskyy Court quashed the bailiffs’ decisions and ordered them to resume the enforcement proceedings 64.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case. 66.  On an unknown date the applicant’s father instituted proceedings in the Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court (the Zhytomyr Court) against the Zhytomyr Labour and Social Welfare Department (the Labour Department), seeking recalculation of benefits and payment of a lump sum due to him. The applicant continued the proceedings after his father’s death on 21 November 2007. 67.  On 24 January 2008 the Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court (the Zhytomyr Court) ordered the Zhytomyr Labour and Social Welfare Department (the Labour Department) to pay the applicant the outstanding debt owed to his late father. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 4 February 2008. 68.  The execution writ was issued by the Zhytomyr Court on 24 April 2008 and referred to the Zhytomyr Bailiffs’ Service. 69.  On several occasions the Bailiffs’ Service returned the execution writ without enforcement for lack of funds on the part of the debtor department. The judgment of 24 January 2008 remains unenforced. 70.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case. 72.  On 13 December 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (the Dnipropetrovsk Court) allowed the applicant company’s claim for restitution of precious metals against the State Enterprise “Prydniprovskyy Zavod Kolyorovykh Metaliv” (the State Enterprise). It also awarded the applicant costs and expenses. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 25 December 2007. The same day the court issued a writ of execution. 73.  On 30 January 2008 the Bagliyskyy Bailiffs’ Service in Dniprodzerzhynsk started enforcement proceedings. 74.  On 11 March 2008 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service. 75.  On 4 April 2008, the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service established that part of the metals had been returned by the debtor to the applicant company and the other part could not be found. 76.  On 6 June 2008 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine ordered the liquidation of the State Enterprise. A liquidation commission was created. On 28 July 2008 the same Ministry issued another decree concerning liquidation of the State Enterprise. 77.  On 5 September 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the award for costs and expenses under the judgment of 13 December 2007. 78.  Having been notified about the impossibility of finding the remainder of the metals to be restituted under the judgment of 13 December 2007, the applicant company requested the Dnipropetrovsk Court to vary the mode of execution of the judgment in that part and to award it the monetary equivalent of missing metals. 79.  On 22 September 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Court amended the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of 13 December 2007 and ordered the State Enterprise to pay the applicant company compensation. 80.  On 27 October 2008 and 25 February 2009, that decision was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court respectively. 81.  On 9 April 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings owing to the liquidation of the debtor. 82.  Following the applicant company’s complaint, on 21 September 2009 the Donetsk Circuit Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 6 June and 28 July 2008 concerning the liquidation of the State Enterprise. This decision was overruled on appeal by the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 23 December 2009, but ultimately upheld by the Higher Administrative Court on 6 July 2010. 83.  On 10 April 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court initiated insolvency proceedings in respect of the State Enterprise on the applicant’s request. On 9 July 2013 the same court declared the State Enterprise insolvent and ordered its liquidation. 84.  The judgment of 13 December 2007 as varied by the ruling of 22 September 2008 remains unenforced. 85.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in its case. It further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies to speed up the enforcement of the above judgment.