FIFTH SECTION        CASE OF MALAKHOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 35995/09 and 249 other applications)         JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 12 December 2013     This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Malakhova 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 19 November 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 and legal entities registered in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos. 55551/09, 23720/11, 23883/11, 36094/11 and 12636/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed a wish to pursue the applications.3. In application no. 7508/11 the decision was delivered in favour of the applicant’s deceased father. The applicant claims to be his lawful heiress.4. The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.5. On 26 March 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.6. On 25 October 2013 the Court was informed that Mr Viktor Gerasymovych Pogorilyy, the applicant in application no. 50491/11, had died on 29 May 2012. The applicant’s wife, Ms Nadiya Vasylivna Pogorila, expressed her wish to maintain the application of the deceased husband.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE7. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and labour disputes commissions 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.8. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF Ms NADIYA VASYLIVNA POGORILA (THE WIFE OF THE APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 50491/11)9. The Court notes that application no. 50491/11 concerns a property right which is in principle transferable to the heirs, and that there are next of kin of the deceased applicant who wish to pursue the application. In these circumstances the Court considers that Ms Nadiya Vasylivna Pogorila, the wife of the deceased applicant, has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).II. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 55551/09, 7508/11, 23720/11, 23883/11, 36094/11 and 12636/1310. In their observations to application no. 12636/13 the Government informed the Court that the applicant, Mrs Valentina Melnikova, had died on 21 October 2011, after lodging the application. The Government claimed that the applicant’s daughter, Mrs Tatyana Vasko, who wished to support the application of her deceased mother, could not claim to be a victim in respect of the non-enforcement of the judgment given in favour of Mrs Valentina Melnikova, as she did not become her legal successor. The Government did not raise objections as to the standing of the other applicants.11. The Court recalls that the concept of “victim” in Article 34 of the Convention must be interpreted autonomously and independently of domestic law concepts, such as for instance the capacity to bring or take part in legal proceedings (see, Greek Federation of Customs Officers, Gialouris and others v. Greece, no. 24581/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995, DR 81-B, p. 127). The Court recalls that an application may be pursued in the name of a deceased person by a person of the required standing, such as a relative or an heir to the estate (see, among many other authorities, Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑V, §§ 26; Zamula and Others v. Ukraine, no. 10231/02, § 34, 8 November 2005). Therefore the Government’s objections as to the lack of standing of Mrs Tatyana Vasko, the applicant’s daughter in application no. 12636/13, to pursue her application must be dismissed.12. The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos. 55551/09, 7508/11, 23720/11, 23883/11, 36094/11 and 12636/13 (see paragraphs 2 and 3 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. 113. 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 114. In view of the similarity of the applications listed in Appendix 1 in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.15. In their observations with respect to 2 applications, concerning the same debtor, the State-owned opened joint-stock company “Sodovyy Zavod”, the Government argued that the applicants did not suffer a significant disadvantage as the amounts awarded to them by the domestic decisions were lower than UAH 1,147 (around 110 euros), the minimum subsistence level for a person able to work, established by the Law “On the State Budget for the year 2013”.16. The Court notes that the domestic decisions in those 2 applications were delivered in 2005 and concerned salary arrears. At the material time the minimum salary was about UAH 300, while the lowest amount in question was UAH 868. The court also notes that the decisions remain unenforced for unreasonably long period of 8 years. Taking to consideration the abovementioned the Court, therefore, rejects the Government’s objection to the admissibility of those applications.17. The Court notes that the complaints of the applicants enumerated in Appendix 1 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.18. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.19. 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