FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KACHERSKAYA AND FROLOVA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 28020/03)        JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 11 December 2008  FINAL 11/03/2009 This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kacherskaya and Frolova v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Rait Maruste, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Mark Villiger, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2008,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in application (no. 28020/03) 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, Mrs Lidiya Konstantinovna Kacherskaya (“the first applicant”) and Mrs Irina Igorevna Frolova (“the second applicant”) on 12 August 2003.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovskaya.3. The applicants alleged non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour.4. On 13 October 2004 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The first applicant was born in 1937; the second applicant was born in 1958. They live in Pervomaysk, Mykolaiv region, Ukraine.6. On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the first applicant 1,410.85 [1]Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education.7. On 2 August 1999 the same court awarded the first applicant UAH 324.34[2] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.8. On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the second applicant UAH 794.60[3] in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education. On 2 August 1999, the same court awarded the second applicant UAH 274[4] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.9. In December 2003, the Mykolaiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour could not be enforced due to lack of the funds in the State budget, and the property of the debtor could not be attached since it was a public institution.10. The judgments given in favour of the applicants remain unenforced.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW11. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Romashov v. Ukraine (no. 67534/01, §§ 16-19, 27 July 2004) and Kechko v. Ukraine (no. 63134/00, §§ 16-18, 8 November 2005).THE LAWI. SCOPE OF THE CASE12. In reply to the Government’s observations the applicants invoked Article 13 of the Convention referring to the same facts. The Court notes that this complaint was not included in the initial application, on which the Government have already commented.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation