FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF ALPATOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 7321/05 and 107 other applications)          JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 4 February 2013under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 18 December 2012   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Alpatov and others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Angelika Nußberger, President, André Potocki, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2012,Having noted that the underlying question in the applications is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court and that the parties had the ample opportunity to comment on it and on any other aspects of the case,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 108 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 118 Ukrainian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, whose details are specified in the annexed tables (“the applicants”).2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kultchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.3. The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates. The Government have submitted observations concerning some of the applications. Having been initially adjourned in accordance with the Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov pilot judgment (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)), the proceedings in the applications have been resumed in February 2012 (for further details see Kharuk and others v. Ukraine [Committee], no.703/05, §§ 4-6, 26 July 2012).4. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court unilateral declarations concerning all the present applications, and requested the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the declarations. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government’s requests.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEA. Non-enforcement issues5. On the dates set out in the annexed tables domestic courts and commissions on labour disputes delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/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 because of the authorities’ failure to take specific budgetary or regulatory measures, because of the introduction of bans on the attachment and sale of property belonging to State-owned or controlled companies, or because of the bailiffs’ omissions.B. Other matters6. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS7. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PRTOCOL No. 18. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:Article 6“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] tribunal...”Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”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... Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”A. Admissibility9. The Court notes that the applicants’ above complaints 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.B. Merits10. The Court notes that the decisions in the applicants’ favour remained unenforced for lengthy periods of time, for which the authorities were responsible.11. The Court reiterates that it has already found violations of the Convention in similar cases (see Kharuk and others, cited above, §§ 17-19).12. Having examined all the material in its possession, the Court finds no fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.13.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation