FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF RAMUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE    (Application nos. 11867/08, 11868/08, 28969/08, 28971/08, 28979/08 and 37484/08)    JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 10 December 2009 FINAL 10/03/2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 ofthe Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Ramus and others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Karel Jungwiert, Rait Maruste, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges, Mykhaylo Buromenskiy, ad hoc judge,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2009,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in six applications (nos. 11867/08, 11868/08, 28969/08, 28971/08, 28979/08 and 37484/08) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Ukrainian nationals, Ms Taisa Nikolayevna Ramus (“first applicant”), Ms Nadezhda Vladimirovna Gritsenko (“second applicant”), Ms Nina Sergeyevna Klimenkova (“third applicant”), Ms Anna Nikolayevna Akimenko (“fourth applicant”), Ms Tamara Eduardovna Didenko (“fifth applicant”) and Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Mikhaylov (“sixth applicant”) (together referred to as “the applicants”), on 21 February 2008 (application nos. 11867/08 and 11868/08), 7 June 2008 (application nos. 28969/08, 28971/08, 28979/08) and 23 July 2008 (application no. 37484/08).2. The sixth applicant had no representative. All the other applicants were represented by Mr Vladislav Bychkovskiy, a lawyer practising in Miusynsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Yuriy Zaytsev.3. On 20 November 2008 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicants are Ukrainian nationals who live in Luhansk Region.5. On various dates the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded the applicants the following sums in compensation for salary arrears to be paid by the State Open Joint Stock Company “Yanivska” Factory of the State Holding Company “Donbasantratsyt” (Державне відкрите акціонерне товариство Центральна збагачувальна фабрика «Янівська» Державної холдингової компанії «Донбасантрацит»):-          first applicant - 1,462.47 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) by the judgment of 21 June 2002 and UAH 353.69[2] and 540.53[3] by two separate judgments of 11 August 2005;-          second applicant – UAH 2,906.27[4] by the judgment of 1 June 2005;-          third applicant – UAH 4,426.51[5] by the judgment of 8 July 2005;-          fourth applicant – UAH 4,948.23[6] by the judgment of 11 May 2005;-          fifth applicant – UAH 3,992.99[7] by the judgment of 17 December 2003 and 1,415.54[8] by the judgment of 31 August 2005;-          sixth applicant - UAH 5,556[9] by the judgment of 1 February 2007 and UAH 3,940[10] by the judgment of 21 June 2007.6. All the judgments became final but remain unenforced owing to the debtor's lack of funds.7. On 20 March 2007 the Ministry of Coal Industry of Ukraine ordered liquidation of the debtor“Yanivska” Factory.II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW8. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Sokur v. Ukraine (no. 29439/02, § 17-22, 26 April 2005).THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS9. The Court considers that, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION10. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”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.”A. Admissibility11. The Government submitted that the first and the fifth applicants had failed to institute enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in their favour and had therefore not exhausted all the remedies available to them under the Ukrainian law.12. The applicants disagreed.13. The Court finds that it is inappropriate to require an individual who has obtained judgment against the State at the end of legal proceedings to then bring enforcement proceedings to obtain satisfaction (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 198, ECHR 2006‑V; and Lizanets v. Ukraine, no. 6725/03, § 43, 31 May 2007). It therefore rejects the Government's objection.14. The Court notes that the applicants' complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits15. The Government maintained that there had been no breach of any of the provisions of the Convention as the applicants' right to have the judgments in their favour enforced has never been contested and the State authorities had taken all necessary measures to enforce the judgments in question.16. The applicants disagreed.17. The Court observes that it frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising similar issues to the present applications (see, among many other authorities, Sokur v. Ukraine, § 37, cited above; and Anatskiy v. Ukraine, no. 10558/03, § 23, 13 December 2005) and that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present cases.18. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation