FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF ROBOTA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 7158/04 and 88 other applications)          JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 4 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 Robota 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 question in the applications is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court and that the parties had the ample opportunity to comment on it and on any other aspects of the case,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 89 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 90 Ukrainian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, whose details are specified in the annexed tables (“the applicants”).2. In the course of the proceedings Ms N. Khaknazarova (application no. 61133/08) died; her husband, Mr O. Khaknazarov, and her daughter, Ms O. Khaknazarova, 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 the issues of lengthy non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates. The Government have submitted observations concerning some of the applications. Having been initially adjourned in accordance with the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)), the proceedings in the applications were resumed in February 2012 (for further details see Kharuk and others v. Ukraine [Committee], no.703/05, §§ 4-6, 26 July 2012)5. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court unilateral declarations concerning all the present applications, and requested the Court to strike the applications 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 FACTSI. Non-enforcement issues6. On the dates set out in the annexed tables 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 enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time because of the authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary or regulatory measures, of the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies, or because of the bailiffs’ omissions.II. Other matters7. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8. In view of the similarity of the applications 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. 19. 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, expressly or in substance, on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:Article 6“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] tribunal ...”Article 13“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”Article 1 of Protocol No. 1“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ...Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”A. Admissibility10. 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.B. Merits11. The Court notes that the decisions in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced for lengthy periods of time, for which the authorities were responsible.12. The Court reiterates that it has already found violations of the Convention in similar cases (see Kharuk and others, cited above, §§ 17-19).13. Having examined all the material in its possession, the Court finds no fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.14.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation