FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF TERNOVIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 19430/06 and 19 other applications)          JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 5 June 2013under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 11 April 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Ternovik 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 March 2013,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 20 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, except for the applicant in application no. 64583/09, who is a Russian national. Their personal details are set out in the appended table (“the applicants”).2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3. On 4 February 2013 the Russian Government informed the Court that they did not wish to exercise their right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention to intervene in the Court’s proceedings concerning the above application.4. The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy failure to enforce domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, 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. 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.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts delivered judgments according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The judgments became final and 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, because of the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies.7. With the exception of applications no. 25358/06, 1777/08, 20895/09 and 64583/09 in which the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced on 2 June 2011, 18 April 2008, 9 July 2009 and on 18 January 2011 the domestic decisions in all other applications have not been enforced in full.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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 110. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments 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 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.”11. 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.12. The Court finds that the judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible13.

Outcome for Article 6: violation