FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF FEYA, MPP AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 27617/06 and 126 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 21 February 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Feya, MPP 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 29 January 2013,Having noted that the underlying legal issue in the applications is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009),Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 127 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 and Russian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, whose details are specified in the appended tables.2. The applicants in applications nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 and 36266/10 died. The applications were pursued in their name by the persons of the required standing, their relatives or heirs to their estate.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.4. The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy failure to enforce domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates.5. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues. 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.6. The Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 35071/10 and 53963/10 (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 CASE7. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and commissions on labour disputes delivered judgments and 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 because of State’s failure to comply with these decisions.8. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS9. 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 APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 AND 36266/1010. The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in the applications nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 and 36266/10 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants’ 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. 111. 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 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.12. 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.13. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.14.

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