FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF YAVOROVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 25663/02 and 30 others – see list appended)       JUDGMENT  This version was rectified on 2 March 2015under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. STRASBOURG 17 July 2014     This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yavorovenko 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 24 June 2014,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 31 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 and Russian (application no. 54769/08) nationals as well as companies based in Ukraine, Cyprus (application no. 23581/03) and Romania (application no. 22422/05). The details of the applicants are specified in the appended table (“the applicants”).2. In application no. 34384/05 the applicant died in course of the proceedings before the Court. The next of kin of the applicant expressed the wish to maintain the application of their deceased family member.3. In application no. 54769/08 one of the applicants, Ms Klavdiya Nikolayevna Galayda, died in course of the proceedings before the Court. No one expressed the wish to maintain her application.4. In application no. 26330/09 a court decision was delivered in favour of the applicant’s deceased father in law. The applicant, providing documents in support, claims to be his lawful successor in title.5. In application no. 30843/08 the court decisions were delivered in favour of the legal entity which was later liquidated. The applicant company, providing documents in support, claims to be its lawful successor in title.6. On 10 April 2012 the Court, having accepted the unilateral declarations of the Government in applications nos. 23056/07 and 24245/10, decided to strike these applications out of its list of cases.7. On various dates following the decision to strike out the applications nos. 23056/07 and 24245/10, the applicants informed the Court that Government had paid the compensation amount, but had failed to enforce the judgments of the domestic courts. In particular, in application no. 23056/07 the applicant complains of non-enforcement of the judgment of the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv dated 4 February 2005 and in application no. 24245/10 the applicant complains of non-enforcement of the judgment of the Oleksandriya Court dated 22 October 2010.8. The applicants requested, therefore, to restore their applications in the Court’s list of cases.9. The applicants’ letters were sent to the respondent Government for comments. In their replies the Government confirmed that the relevant judgments of the domestic courts remained unenforced. According to information provided by the Government in their letter dated 19 September 2013 and in view of the judgment of the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv adopted on 9 July 2013 and annexed to that letter, the enforcement proceedings which were the subject matter of application no. 23056/07 were terminated on 17 April 2013 (decision fully enforced).[1]10. On 28 May 2013 (in application no. 23056/07) and on 17 December 2013 (in application no. 24245/10) the Court decided to grant the requests of the applicants and to restore the applications to the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of Court.11. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates.12. The Government were represented by their Agent.13. The Cypriot and Romanian Governments, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 23581/03 (lodged by a legal entity registered in Cyprus) and 22422/05 (lodged by a legal entity registered in Romania), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE14. On the dates set out in the appended table 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 final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.15. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS16. In view of the similarity of the applications set out in the Appendix in terms of the principal legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.II. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 26330/09 AND 34384/0517. The Court notes that applications nos. 26330/09 and 34384/05 concern a property right which is 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).III. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 30843/08.18. The Court notes that application no. 30843/08 concerns a property right which is in principle transferable to the successors. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant company – being a lawful successor of the liquidated creditor company - has standing to initiate the present proceedings instead of it (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).IV. AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF Mr VADYM YEVGENOVYCH MYKHAYLENKO (THE SECOND APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 18330/05)19. In application no. 18330/05 the applicants, a legal entity Galon, TOV (first applicant) and Mr Vadym Yevgenovych Mykhaylenko (second applicant), complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Higher Arbitration Court dated 26 December 2000. The domestic court allowed the claim of the first applicant. On 27 June 2003, on 1 August 2003 and on 29 October 2003 the Kyiv City Commercial Court modified the enforcement of the judgment dated 26 December 2000 and obliged the Ministry of Defence to pay the first applicant UAH 701,926[2]. On 16 May 2006 the amount was transferred to the bank account of the first applicant. The decision was enforced after 5 years and 4 months.20. In their observations the Government, inter alia, informed the Court that Mr Mykhaylenko (second applicant) was not a party in the domestic Court proceedings and he could not, therefore, claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of the Convention.21. The Court agrees with the Government and declares this application as concerns the complaints of Mr Vadym Yevgenovych Mykhaylenko (second applicant) inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.V. STRIKE OUT OF THE APPLICATION LODGED BY Ms KLAVDIYA MYKOLAYIVNA GALAYDA (ONE OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATION No. 54769/08)22. By letter dated 12 July 2011 the Court was informed that Ms Klavdiya Mykolayivna Galayda, one of the applicants in application no. 54769/08, had died after lodging the application before this Court. No person expressed the wish to support her application.23. In view of the above the Court decides to strike out from its list of cases the application lodged by Ms Klavdiya Mykolayivna Galayda, since the applicant died and there are no persons wishing to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the complaints.VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 124. The applicants listed in the Appendix complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour, as specified in the Appendix, 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. 1.25. The Court notes that the above complaints (with the exception of the complaints raised by Ms Klavdiya Mykolayivna Galayda, one of the applicants in application no. 54769/08 and by Mr Mykhaylenko, second applicant in application no. 18330/05, see paragraphs 17-19 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.26. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.27. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation