FIFTH SECTION  CASE OF BORISOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE  (Application no. 34091/03)  JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG  24 April 2008   FINAL  24/07/2008  This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Borisov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 34091/03) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 43 Ukrainian nationals on 30 August 2003.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.3. On 14 May 2007 the Court decided to communicate the complaints concerning the delay in enforcement of the final judgments given in the applicants’ favour against the State-owned mining companies to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. All forty-three applicants are Ukrainian nationals who live in the Lugansk Region. They are represented by Mr Nikolay Kozyrev.1. Enforcement proceedings against the State-owned mining companies5. The forty-two applicants (see Annex) are/were employees or relatives of employees of State-owned mining companies. During 1999 - 2003 the Krasny Luch Court rendered decisions the applicants’ favour concerning the recovery of salary and/or social benefits arrears, which were enforced in full in 2004 - 2005 with the exception of the judgment in favour of Mr Korniyenko, which remains unenforced (see Annex for details).6. Some of the applicants attempted to claim compensation against the Bailiffs’ Service for the delay in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour, however, these attempts have been to no avail.7. After the institution of the Convention proceedings, Mr Boiko Vladimir Ivanovich, Mr Bakushev Valentin Ivanovich, and Mr Butorin Viktor Nikolayevich died. Their widows, Mrs Boiko Valentina Iosifovna, Mrs Bakusheva Tamara Trofimovna, and Butorina Irina Nikolayevna, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late husbands.2. Enforcement proceedings against KSP “Krasnoluchsky”8. The 43rd applicant, Mrs Melnikova Inessa Gennadiyevna, is a former employee of the collective agricultural enterprise “Krasnoluchsky” (KSP). The decision given by the Krasny Luch Court on 26 December 2001 ordering KSP to pay her UAH 3,519 in salary arrears was enforced in full on 4 April 2007.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW9. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).THE LAWI. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF Mrs BOIKO, Mrs BAKUSHEVA AND Mrs BUTORINA10. The respondent Government did not advance any arguments against the standing of the widows of Mr Boiko, Mr Bakushev, and Mr Butorin.11. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the information in its possession, the Court considers that the widows of these applicants have standing to continue the present proceedings in their stead (see Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 10-12, 22 February 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicants throughout the text.II. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ABOUT THE DELAY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS12. The applicants complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce the judgments given in their favour in due time. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The impugned provisions provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”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.The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”A. Admissibility1. As to the enforcement of the judgments against the State-owned mining companies13. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.2. As to the enforcement of the judgment against KSP “Krasnoluchsky”14. The Court observes that the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given favour of Mrs Melnikova was due to the private entity’s lack of funds. However, the State cannot be considered responsible for such lack of funds and its responsibility extends no further then the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings (see Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002). Moreover, the applicant did not apply to any domestic court against the alleged omissions or inactivity of the Bailiffs’ Service in the impugned enforcement proceedings (see, for instance, Dzizin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 1086/02, 24 June 2003).15. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.B. Merits16. The Government contended that there had been no violation of the Convention rights.17. The applicants disagreed.18. The Court notes that the judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced for considerable periods of time.19. The Court recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in a number of similar cases (see, for instance, Sokur v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 36-37 and Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, §§ 37-38, 22 February 2005).20. Having examined all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.21.

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