FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF VINNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 13977/05 and 45 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 7 November 2013    This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Vinnik 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 15 October 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in 46 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, one Lithuanian national (application no. 74608/10) and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. In applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.4. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.5. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in seventeen applications. The Government requested the Court to strike the applications concerned 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 request.6. The Lithuanian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 74608/10 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE7. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and labour disputes commissions 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.8. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS9. 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. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION No. 36411/06 AS REGARDS THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH APPLICANTS10. In application no. 36411/06 the applicants, members of the same family, complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of three judgments given exclusively in favour of the first applicant, Mr Petro Stanislavovych Abramov. The other applicants do not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in their favour and therefore they neither can complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of the alleged violations of their Convention rights.11. It follows that insofar as application no. 36411/06 has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. This part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.III. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 AND 31562/1312. The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants’ stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 113. The applicants 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. 1.14. The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 13 above) lodged by the applicants listed in the Appendix (by the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) 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. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.16. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.

Outcome for Article 13: violation