FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF FILATOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 12424/06 and 15 others – see list appended)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 31 July 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Filatova 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 16 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 companies based in Ukraine. The details of the applicants are specified in the appended table (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos. 12424/06 and 23509/08 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications.3. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates.4. The Government were represented by their Agent.5. On 15 December 2011 (in application no. 7436/08) and on 15 September 2011 (in application no. 40893/09) the Government submitted to the Court their 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. Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court finds that they do not provide a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights does not require continuing the examination of the application.THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts 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. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8. 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. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 12424/06 and 23509/089. The Court notes that applications nos. 12424/06 and 23509/08 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).III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 110. The applicants listed in the Appendix 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. 1.11. The Court notes that the 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.12. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.13. 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