FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF TSIBULKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 65656/11 and 249 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 20 June 2013   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tsibulko 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 11 June 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 250 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, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The applicant Ms Yanina Gavrilovna Verkhovskaya died (application no. 4684/12). Her daughter, Ms Lyudmila Alekseevna Podzirova, manifested a wish to pursue the application on her behalf.3. The Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.4. On 25 October 2012 the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.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. 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. THE APPLICANT’S STANDING (APPLICATION No. 4684/12)8. The Court considers that the applicant’s daughter in application no. 4684/12 (see paragraph 2 above) has standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).III. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANTS’ COMPLAINTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 12952/12 AND 20248/129. In application no. 12952/12 the applicant complained about failure to enforce the judgment of 19 May 2011. However, it appears from the parties’ submissions that the judgment was fully enforced on 23 August 2011. Thus, the judgment at issue had been fully enforced within a period of just four months.10. In application no. 20248/12 the applicant complained about failure to enforce the judgment of 11 August 2010. However, it was quashed on 1 October 2012 by the Higher Administrative Court. Thus, the judgment at issue remained unenforced for a period of nine months only.11. The Court considers that abovementioned periods of non-enforcement did not impair the applicants’ right of access to a court (see, among many other authorities, Savchur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 20338/03, 8 July 2008; Andreyenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 22312/03, 19 June 2007; Zbaranskaya v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43496/02, 11 October 2005). The Court considers that the applications, set out in Appendix 1, must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.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 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. 1.13. The Government submitted, with respect to a number of applications, that no violation of the applicant’s rights had occurred. They noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Amending the Law of Ukraine On the State Budget for 2011” of 14 June 2011 and the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no. 745 “On Providing Certain Amounts of Payments, Financed at the Expense of the State Budget”, reduced the amounts allocated by the State budget for enforcement of judgments awarding social payments to the applicants and that the applicants’ entitlements under the relevant legislation were accordingly reduced. They considered that the applicants’ complaints were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.14. The Court notes the judgments at issue are final and enforceable and have not complied with by the State for a lengthy period of time, for which the State authorities remain responsible. The regulations on allocation of budgetary resources do not affect that position. Moreover, the Court recalls its constant case-law specifying that the State’s failure to comply with the enforceable judgments in view of its lack of budgetary funds, cannot justify non-enforcement (see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 55, 29 June 2004). It therefore rejects the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the applications set out in Appendix 2 and notes that the 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.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