FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KONONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 11770/03 and 89 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 6 June 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kononova 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 14 May 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 90 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, one Russian national (application no. 56464/07) and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos. 35771/07, 28061/08, 28071/08, 46953/08, 25260/09, 26397/09, 20032/10, 22620/10, 25288/10 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed a wish to pursue the applications.3. Mr Andriy Salnikov (application no. 28061/08) and Ms Diana Salnikova (application no. 28071/08) are brother and sister. They are both heirs of their deceased father and challenge the lengthy non-enforcement of the same judgment adopted in favour of their father.4. The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.5. The applications listed in Appendices 1 and 2 were communicated to the Government on various dates in 2003-2011.6. The Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 56464/07 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE7. 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 enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.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 issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.II. THE SECOND APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 47387/0610. The second applicant in application no. 47387/06, Ms Lyubov Rusanova, complains about delay in payment of the salary caused by her former employer (State agency) and about the outcome of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicant has however failed to establish that any salary was outstanding, and has in any event failed to show that she appealed against the sole decision in the Court’s file. The Court finds that this part of application no. 47387/06 must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.III. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 35771/07, 28061/08, 28071/08, 46953/08, 25260/09, 26397/09, 20032/10, 22620/10, 25288/1011. The Court considers that in applications listed in paragraph 2 (see above) the next-of-kin of the deceased applicants have standing to continue the proceedings in their stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 112. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. Expressly or in substance they relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.13. The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 12 above) 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.14. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.15. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation