FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF MAKARA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 40934/06 and 249 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 12 December 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Makara 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 naionals, a company based in Ukraine and a Moldovan national, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3. On 25 April 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.4. The Moldovan Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 63044/11 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), did not manifest the wish to exercise that right.5. On 25 October 2013 the son of the applicant in application no. 75234/11 informed the Court that his father, Andriy Ivanovych Kolomiyets, had died on 24 June 2013. Mr Sergiy Andriyovych Kolomiyets expressed his wish to maintain the application of the deceased father.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. 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.7. 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 Mr SERGIY ANDRIYOVYCH KOLOMIYETS (SON OF THE APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 75234/11)8. The Court notes that application no. 75234/11 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 Mr Sergiy Andriyovych Kolomiyets, the son 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. 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 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 110. 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.11. The Court notes that in several applications the Government made specific comments on the admissibility of the case, including that the judgment had been enforced, that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage, that the applicant was not entitled to sums of money claimed, that the application was an abuse of the right of petition, that the applicants had lost interest in the case, or that the State was otherwise not responsible for the delay. The Court has considered these submissions as they have been made, notes that they are similar to submissions which have been made in previous cases and finds that, for similar or related reasons, they do not affect the outcome of the present case.12. The Court further 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.13. The Court finds that the domestic decisions set out in Appendix 1 were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.14. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation