FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KHARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 703/05 and 115 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 26 July 2012   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kharuk and others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Karel Jungwiert, André Potocki, judges,and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2012,Having noted that the underlying question in the applications is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court and that the parties had the ample opportunity to comment on it and on any other aspects of the case,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 116 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 114 Ukrainian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In the course of the proceedings Mr P. Vasylyev (application no. 17684/08) died, and his wife, Ms V. Vasylyeva, expressed the wish to pursue the application.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskiy, of the Ministry of Justice.4. The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy non‑enforcement of domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates.5. In accordance with the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)) addressing the issues of prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions, the examination of the applications was adjourned until 15 July 2011.6. Meanwhile, Ukraine was directed to adopt the necessary measures in order to solve the problems, in particular to set up 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 (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 94 and point 5 of its operative part).7. On 21 February 2012, having noted that Ukraine had not adopted the required measures, the Court decided to resume the examination of the applications.8. 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 applications concerned are specified in the appended tables). 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.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEA. Non-enforcement issues9. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and commissions on labour disputes delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/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 because of the authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary or regulatory measures, because of the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies, or because of the bailiffs’ omissions. With the exception of the application no. 27562/09, in which the decision in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 18 November 2008, the domestic decisions in all the present applications have not been enforced in full.B. Other matters10. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW11. On 5 June 2012 the Verkhovna Rada adopted the Act on the State Guarantees Concerning Execution of Judicial Decisions with the aim of solving the issues of non-enforcement at the domestic level. On 22 June 2012 the President signed the Act. The Act will enter into force on 1 January 2013.12. The Act provides for the introduction of the procedures under which pecuniary debts under domestic decisions may be met by the State Treasury where debtor State bodies, State companies, or companies with the ban on the sale of property fail to pay them in due time. The Act also provides for compensation when the authorities delay payments under those procedures.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS13. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.II. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANT’S WIFE IN APPLICATION No. 17684/0814. The Court notes that it has not been disputed that Ms V. Vasylyeva is entitled to pursue application no. 17684/08 on behalf of the applicant, Mr P. Vasylyev. The Court finds that she has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PRTOCOL No. 115. 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 invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:Article 6“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] tribunal ...”Article 13“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”Article 1 of Protocol No. 1“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”A. Admissibility16. The Court notes that the applicants’ above complaints 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.B. Merits17. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the authorities were responsible.18. The Court further observes that Ukraine has not introduced a remedy at the national level satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention for the applicants’ complaints about the non-enforcement of the decisions in their favour (for the relevant principles, see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, § 65). Although new regulations have been introduced to guarantee the full and timely enforcement of decisions against the State authorities and State-owned or controlled companies (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above), the Court notes that the new regulations will not enter into force before 1 January 2013 and, in any event, do not provide for compensation for the delays in the enforcement of domestic decisions which have already taken place. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the implementation of the new regulations will be supported by sufficient budgetary allocations.19.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 13
Outcome: violation