FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KARPUKHAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 45524/05, 39316/07, 39326/07, 39329/07, 39331/07, 39332/07, 39333/07, 39335/07, 39337/07, 39339/07, 39342/07, 39360/07, 39407/07, 39411/07, 39418/07, 39422/07, 39426/07, 39429/07, 39433/07, and 45858/07)    JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 December 2009 FINAL 10/03/2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Karpukhan and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Karel Jungwiert, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges, Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in twenty applications (see Annex I) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty Ukrainian nationals:-          Mr Andrey Igorevich KARPUKHAN of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1982 (no. 45524/05) (the first applicant);-          Svetlana Mikhaylovna POMOGAYEVA of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1963 (no. 39316/07) (the second applicant);-          Viktor Petrovich YEVTUSHEVICH of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1963 (no. 39326/07) (the third applicant);-          Ludmila Valentinovna MOMRIK of Vakhrushevo, born in 1959 (no. 39329/07) (the fourth applicant);-          Nina Ivanovna MEDVED of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1956 (no. 39331/07) (the fifth applicant);-          Larisa Aleksandrovna SAMOFALOVA of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1953 (no. 39332/07) (the sixth applicant);-          Vitaliy Yevgenyevich SAMOFALOV of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1979 (no. 39333/07) (the seventh applicant);-          Tatyana Viktorovna GORSKAYA of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1952 (no. 39335/07) (the eighth applicant);-          Valentina Leonidovna SHEVCHENKO of Vakhrushevo, born in 1955 (no. 39337/07) (the ninth applicant);-          Valentina Viktorovna SERKINA of Kniaginovka, born in 1955 (no. 39339/07) (the tenth applicant);-          Nikolay Mikhaylovich SERKIN of Kniaginovka, born in 1955 (no. 39342/07) (the eleventh applicant);-          Tatyana Anatolyevna PINDUR of Kniaginovka, born in 1971 (no. 39360/07) (the twelfth applicant);-          Yelena Vladimirovna KAZHARSKAYA of Vakhrushevo, born in 1965 (no. 39407/07) (the thirteenth applicant);-          Lyudmila Aleksandrovna TIMOSHENKO of Vakhrushevo, born in 1969 (no. 39411/07) (the fourteenth applicant);-          Olga Aleksandrovna YASYUCHENYA of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1973 (no. 39418/07) (the fifteenth applicant);-          Vitaliy Vladimirovich YASYUCHENYA of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1970 (no. 39422/07) (the sixteenth applicant);-          Nataliya Nikolayevna BYCHEK of Vakhrushevo, born in 1964 (no. 39426/07) (the seventeenth applicant);-          Vera Sergeyevna NOSKO of Krasnyy Luch, born in 1945 (no. 39429/07) (the eighteenth applicant);-          Irina Nikolayevna PIKULINA of Vakhrushevo, born in 1960 (no. 39433/07) (the nineteenth applicant);-          Ivan Pavlovich ZHUKOV of Krasnyy Luch born in 1938 (no. 45858/07) (the twentieth applicant).2. The applicants were represented by Mr V.N. Bychkovskiy. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev.3. The Court decided to communicate the applications to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. By decisions of the Krasnyy Luch Town Court adopted between 2002 and 2005 the State Company “Tsentralna Zbagachuvalna Fabryka 'Yanivska' ” (ДВАТ «Центральна збагачувальна фабрика “Янівська”») was ordered to pay the applicants various amounts in salary arrears and other payments (see Annex I for details). The decisions in favour of the applicants remain unenforced. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW5. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the Sokur v. Ukraine judgment (no. 29439/02, §§ 17-22, 26 April 2005).THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to join the applications, given their common factual and legal background.II. COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 17. The applicants complained about the State authorities' failure to enforce in due time the judgments given in their favour. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...”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.The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ....”A. Admissibility8. The Government submitted no observations on the admissibility of the above complaints with the exception of application no. 45524/05. In particular, in that application they raised objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the first applicant, similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in its judgment in the case of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 28-32, 27 July 2004). The Court considers that these must be rejected for the same reasons.9. The Government further noted that the first applicant had lodged his application with the Court four months after the judgment of the domestic court and two months after the beginning of the enforcement proceedings. They asserted in this regard that at the time it was lodged the application was manifestly ill-founded.10. The Court notes that the application to the Court did not preclude the Government from enforcing the judgment at issue. Moreover, seven years after delivery, the judgment remains unenforced. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government's preliminary objection.11. The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits12.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation