FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF SHTABOVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22722/07 and 99 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 25 April 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shtabovenko 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 2 April 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 100 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, a company based in Ukraine and a Russian national, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The applicant Mr Viktor Andriyovych Bondar died (application no. 13890/09). His wife, Ms Nadiya Yefremivna Bondar, manifested a wish to pursue the application on his behalf.3. By letter dated 19 December 2012, the Government informed the Court that the applicant Mr Vladimir Shabodinovich Khamzatov (application no. 33262/10) had died. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the deceased applicant’s address on 19 February 2013 by registered post for comments to be submitted by 11 March 2013. The reader was warned that in the absence of response, the Court would assume that the applicant had died and that no individual was entitled and wished to pursue the application. No reply was received.4. By letter dated 27 October 2012 the applicant Ms Olena Georgiyivna Mykhaylova (application no. 475/11) informed the Court that she wanted to withdraw the application since the judgment rendered in her favour had been fully enforced.5. The Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.6. On 4 October 2012 the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.7. The Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 63882/09 (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 CASE8. 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.9. 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 APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 13890/0910. The Court considers that the applicant’s wife in application no. 13890/09 (see paragraph 2 above) has standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s 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. 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 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.A. Applications tabulated in Appendices 1 and 212. The Court considers that the applications tabulated in Appendices 1 and 2 should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.1. Applications tabulated in Appendix 113. In their observations the Government submitted that the debtor in respect of the judgments indicated in Appendix 1 was a private company. However, between 28 November 2005 and 30 July 2010 the Fuel and Energy (Complex Enterprises) Register included the debtor in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the 2005 Act on measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises and all enforcement proceedings in respect of it were frozen. Therefore, the Government bore responsibility for the debtor’s actions from the moment when the applicants’ judgments became final and until it was excluded from the Register. They argued that those periods could not be considered excessive. As regards the period after 30 July 2010, the Government, referring to the Court’s case law (see Dovgal v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 50726/06, 20 October 2009), maintained that the State was responsible for the non-enforcement in the applicant’s favour only insofar as the State Bailiffs’ Service was involved, while the applicants had not challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity in the enforcement of their judgments. Given the above the Government claimed that the applications should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.14. Given its findings in previous similar cases against Ukraine (see, for instance, Andreyenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 22312/03, 19 June 2007 and Gapeyev v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21659/06, 17 November 2009), the Court considers that these applications must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.2. Applications tabulated in Appendix 215. The Government submitted in their observations that the debtor in respect of the judgments specified in Appendix 2 was a private legal entity. They reiterated that the State’s positive obligation to enforce the judgments against a private entity extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings. They claimed that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded given that they failed to challenge the actions of the State Bailiffs’ Service.16.

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