FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KHVOROSTYANOY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 54552/09 and 249 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 25 July 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Khvorostyanoy 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 9 July 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 250 applications (nos. 54552/09 and others) 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, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. On 23 January 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.3. In applications nos. 22066/12 and 31336/12 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed a wish to pursue the applications.4. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts 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.6. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 17. All the applicants listed in appendices 1-6 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 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.A. Admissible applications (Appendix 1)8. 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.9. The Court 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.10. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.11. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article 6: violation