FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF VARAVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 12405/06 and 118 other applications)          JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 11 March 2013under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 17 January 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Varava 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 18 December 2012,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 119 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 and a Russian national, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In the course of the proceedings Mr Borovskyy (application no. 39477/07) died, and his wife, Ms Borovska expressed the wish to pursue the application.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.4. The applications, which mainly concern non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour and excessive delays in the enforcement of decisions, 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 raised in seventeen applications (the applications concerned are specified in the appended tables). 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 applicant in application no. 12172/08 (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 table the domestic courts and commissions on labour disputes delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became final and thus enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to secure the enforcement of these decisions in full or in due time as a result of the national authorities’ failure to take action.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 APPLICANT’S WIFE IN APPLICATION No. 39477/0710. The Court notes that it has not been disputed that Ms Borovska is entitled to pursue application no. 39477/07 on behalf of the applicant, Mr Borovskyy. The Court finds that she has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s 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 prolonged non-enforcement of the domestic court decisions given in their favour and the lack of effective remedies in domestic law in respect of their grievances. 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.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation