FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF SHCHUKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 59834/09 and 249 others – see lists appended)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 13 February 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shchukin 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 21 January 2014,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 250 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 and legal entities registered in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos.  68847/12, 75728/12, 77848/12, 81588/12 and 409/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. The next of kin of the applicants in applications nos. 68847/12, 75728/12, 81588/12 and 409/13 expressed the wish to maintain the applications of their deceased relatives.3. In application no. 68224/12 a court decision was delivered in favour of the applicant’s deceased husband. The applicant (wife of the deceased) claims to be his lawful successor in title.4. The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.5. On 4 July 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and labour disputes commission 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.7. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION LODGED BY Mr ANTON ANTONOVYCH GIBNER (APPLICATION No. 77848/12)8. The Court notes that by letter dated 24 October 2013, sent by registered post to the address of the applicant, “those whom it might concern” were invited to inform the Court by 21 November 2013 whether they wished to maintain the application of the deceased Mr Gibner, however no reply followed.9. In view of the above the Court decides to strike out from its list of cases the application lodged by Mr Anton Antonovych Gibner, since the applicant died and there are no persons wishing to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the complaints.II. WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION LODGED BY Mr YURIY PETROVYCH KORKUSHKO (APPLICATION No. 73243/12)10. The Court notes that in application no. 73243/12 the applicant complained of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour by the Ovruch Court on 15 December 2009.11. By letter dated 19 October 2013 the applicant’s representative, Mr Volodymyr Mykolayovych Savchenko, informed the Court that the relevant decision of the Ovruch Court had been duly enforced and that his client no longer wished to maintain the application.12. In view of the above the Court decides to strike out from its list of cases the application lodged by Mr Yuriy Petrovych Korkushko, since the decision of the domestic court had been enforced and the applicant does not wish to pursue his application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the complaint.III. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 68224/12, 68847/12, 75728/12, 81588/12 and 409/13.13. The Court notes that applications nos. 68224/12, 68847/12, 75728/12, 81588/12 and 409/13 concern a property right which is in principle transferable to the heirs. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicants or their next of kin have standing to continue the present proceedings in their 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. 114. The applicants complained 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. They relied on, expressly or in substance, Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.A. Applications set out in Appendix 115. In view of the similarity of the applications listed in Appendix 1 in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.16. The Court notes that in several applications the Government made specific comments on the admissibility of the case, including that the judgment had been enforced, that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage, that the applicant was not entitled to sums of money claimed or that the State was otherwise not responsible for the delay. The Court has considered these submissions as they have been made, notes that they are similar to submissions which have been made in previous cases and finds that, for similar or related reasons, they do not affect the outcome of the present case.17. The Court further notes that the complaints of the applicants enumerated in Appendix 1 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.18. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.19. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation