FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 6155/05 and 22 others – see list appended)         JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 9 January 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kyselyova 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 3 December 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 23 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. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.4. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in three 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. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government’s requests.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission 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.6. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS7. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 18. The applicants 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. 1.9. The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 8 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.10. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.11. 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 1
Outcome: violation