FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 29266/08 and 248 others – see list appended)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 13 February 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Vasilyev 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 21 January 2014,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 249 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 whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The applicants Mr Bulavko and Mr Ponomaryov (in application no. 49765/08), Mr Zavarzin (in application no. 62187/12) and Mr Bondar (in application no. 62247/12) died in the course of proceedings before the Court. The next of kin of the applicants expressed a wish to maintain the applications of their deceased relatives.3. In applications nos. 60126/12, 60150/12, 60165/12, 60177/12, 60179/12, 60250/12, 60396/12, 62582/12 and 62588/12 court decisions were delivered in favour of the applicants’ deceased relatives. The applicants claim to be their lawful successors in title.4. The Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.5. On 24 June 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.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 THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos 49765/08, 60126/12, 60150/12, 60165/12, 60177/12, 60179/12, 60250/12, 60396/12, 62187/12, 62247/12, 62582/12 and 62588/128. The Court notes that applications nos. 49765/08, 60126/12, 60150/12, 60165/12, 60177/12, 60179/12, 60250/12, 60396/12, 62187/12, 62247/12, 62582/12 and 62588/12 concern property rights which are in principle transferable to the heirs. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicants or their next of kin have standing to continue the present proceedings in their 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. In a number of applications the Government made specific comments on the admissibility of the case, including that the judgments had been enforced, that the applicants had not suffered any significant disadvantage, that the applicants were not entitled to sums of money claimed 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 8: violation