FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SHTEFAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 36762/06 and 249 others – see list appended)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG  31 July 2014       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shtefan 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 8 July 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, one Azerbaijan national (application no. 6397/13) and legal entities registered in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos. 711/13 and 736/13 court decisions were delivered in favour of the applicants’ deceased relatives. The applicants claim to be their lawful successors in title.3. The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.4. On 16 October 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.5. The Azerbaijan Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 6397/13 (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 FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. On the dates set out in the appended tables 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.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 APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 (c) OF THE CONVENTION8. The Court notes that on 14 January 2014 the Government submitted unilateral declarations, in which they acknowledged the excessive duration of the enforcement of the judgments in 228 cases (with exception of some domestic judgments concerning which the observations of the Government were provided), expressed their readiness to enforce them and offered the applicants EUR 500 by way of monetary compensation.9. The Government invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and suggested that the declarations might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.10. The applicants either disagreed with the declarations on various grounds and requested the Court to pursue the examination of their cases or did not provide any comments.11. The Court reiterates that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration made by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine) (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).12. The Court considers that the compensation sum offered by the Government, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot be regarded as adequate (see, by analogy, the principles established in Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006 V or Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, §§ 173-216). It also rejects the settlement proposed by the parties, as it considered that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, requires the further examination of the case, pursuant to Articles 37 § 1 in fine and 38 § 1(b) of the Convention.13. In the light of the foregoing considerations, having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court does not consider them as intending to give the applicants adequate and sufficient redress, and thus the applicants could still claim to be victims of the violation.II. WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION LODGED BY Mr VOLODYMYR MYKHAYLOVYCH NAZARENKO (APPLICATION No. 4221/13)14. The Court notes that in application no. 4221/13 the applicant complained of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour by the Barvinkove Court on 29 December 2010.15. By a letter dated 6 November 2013 the applicant informed the Court that the relevant decision the domestic court had been duly enforced and that he wished to withdraw the application.16. The Court reiterates that it may at any stage of the proceedings strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusions specified under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In particular, under Article 37 § 1 (a) the Court may strike a case out of its list if the applicant does not intend to pursue his application.17. In view of the above the Court decides to strike out of its list of cases the application lodged by Mr Volodymyr Mykhaylovych Nazarenko, since the decision of the domestic court has 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. 711/13 and 736/1318. The Court notes that applications nos. 711/13 and 736/13 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. 119. 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 No. 120. In view of the similarity of the applications listed in Appendix No. 1 in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.21. 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, that the application was an abuse of the right of petition 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.22. 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.23. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.24. 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 6
Outcome: violation