FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF MOSKALENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 1270/12 and 249 other applications)           JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 18 July 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Moskalenko 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 25 June 2013,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, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The applicant Mr Vasiliy Spiridonovich Grunskiy died (application no. 38547/12). His spouse, Ms Valentina Petrovna Grunskaya, manifested the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.3. The applicant Mr Petro Andriyovych Plyaka died (application no. 38936/12). His spouse, Ms Valentyna Oleksandrivana Kuzmina, manifested the wish to pursue the application on his behalf.4. By letters dated 22 March 2013, the Government informed the Court that the applicants Mr Viktor Mykolayovych Motuzkov (application no. 36824/12) and Ms Olga Mykhaylivna Moroz (application no. 41253/12) had died. Copies of the letters were forwarded to the deceased applicants’ addresses on 27 March and 10 April 2013 respectively, by registered post for comments to be submitted by 23 April and 10 May 2013. The readers were warned that in the absence of response, the Court would assume that the applicants had died and that no individuals were entitled and wished to pursue the applications. No replies were received.5. The Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.6. On 11 December 2012 the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. On the dates set out in the appended tables 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.5. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 38547/12 AND 38936/126. The Court considers that in applications listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 (see above) the next-of-kin of the deceased applicants have standing to continue the proceedings in their stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 17. 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 18. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.9. The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 36824/12, Mr Viktor Mykolayovych Motuzkov, has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application.10. It also notes that the applicant in application no. 41253/12, Ms Olga Mykhaylivna Moroz, has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application.11. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list.B. Applications set out in Appendix 212. In application no. 29644/12 the applicant complained that from 1 November 2011 the debtor had stopped to enforce the judgment of 21 January 2011, ordering the Pension Fund to carry out recalculation and payment of his pension. The Government observed that on 11 May 2011 the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal amended the judgment and decided that the period of recalculation and payment of the pension should be limited to 22 July 2011. Therefore, the judgment of 21 January 2011 did not cover the period in question. This application must, therefore, be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.С. Applications set out in Appendix 313. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.14. The Court notes that the above complaints of the applicants enumerated in Appendix 3 (see paragraph 16 above) 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.15. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.16. On 17 April 2013 the Government were requested to provide documents which confirmed the Government’s claim that certain judgments debts had been paid. This information was to arrive at the Court by 17 May 2013. A faxed copy of the Government’s observations was received by the Court on 17 May 2013; the annexes in support arrived on 3 June 2013. In application no. 41016/12 the Government submitted documents confirming that payment of part of the judgment debt had been effected before November 2011; in application no. 52222/12 the documents established that the judgment debt was part paid before July 2011. In application no. 41356/12 an order from the ministry to the bank was submitted without confirmation from the bank that the order had been carried out. The Government have thus failed to establish in these three cases that the payment has been made in full.17. The Government also submitted, with respect to a number of applications, that no violation of the applicant’s rights had occurred. They noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Amending the Law of Ukraine On the State Budget for 2011” of 14 June 2011 and the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no. 745 “On Providing Certain Amounts of Payments, Financed at the Expense of the State Budget”, reduced the amounts allocated by the State budget for enforcement of judgments awarding social payments to the applicants and that the applicants’ entitlements under the relevant legislation were accordingly reduced. They considered that the applicants’ complaints were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.18. The Court notes the judgments at issue are final and enforceable and have not complied with by the State for a lengthy period of time, for which the State authorities remain responsible. As the Court has already held in a similar case, the regulations on allocation of budgetary resources do not affect that position (see Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 65656/11 and Others, § 14, 11 June 2013). Moreover, the Court recalls its constant case-law specifying that the State’s failure to comply with the enforceable judgments in view of its lack of budgetary funds, cannot justify non-enforcement (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 55, 29 June 2004). It therefore rejects the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the applications and 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.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation