FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF PYSARSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 20397/07 and 164 other applications)           JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 20 June 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Pysarskyy 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 165 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, a company based in Ukraine and a Russian national, whose details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2. The applicants Mr Volodymyr Adamovych Umanets (application no. 22064/11) and Mr Petro Dmytrovych Neskoromyuk (application no. 22018/11) died. Their son, Mr Stanislav Volodymyrovych Umanets, and sister, Ms Mariya Dmytrivna Morgun, respectively, manifested the wish to pursue the applications on their behalf.3. By letters dated 11 February 2013, the Government informed the Court that the applicants Mr Yukhym Mykolayovych Nishchymenko (application no. 14893/11) and Ms Praskovya Ivanivna Kiriyachenko (application no. 20025/11) had died. Copies of the letters were forwarded to the deceased applicants’ addresses, respectively, on 18 and 7 March 2013 by registered post for comments to be submitted by 18 and 8 April 2013. The readers were warned that in the absence of response, the Court would assume that the applicants had died and that no individuals were entitled and wished to pursue the applications. No replies were received.4. The Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.5. On 20 November 2012 the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.6. The Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 17575/11 (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 tables 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. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 22064/11 and 22018/119. The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos. 22064/11 and 22018/11 (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).II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 110. 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.A. Applications set out in Appendix 111. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.12. The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 14893/11, Mr Yukhym Mykolayovych Nishchymenko, has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application.13. It also notes that the applicant in application no. 20025/11, Ms Praskovya Ivanivna Kiriyachenko, has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application.14. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list.B. Applications set out in Appendix 215. In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.16. In their observations with respect to application no. 10520/11 the Government submitted that the applicant complained about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Barvinkovo Court of 30 April 2010, but the above judgment had never been delivered by that court. The Barvinkovo Court rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour on 17 May 2010 and the findings of the judgment are different from the findings of the judgment of 30 April 2010. The Government claimed that the application was an abuse of the right of individual application should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. The applicant argued that he had obtained a copy of the judgment of 30 April 2010 in the Barvinkovo Court and learned about the judgment of 17 May 2010 from the Government’s observations.17. The Court observes that it appears from the case-file materials that the judgment, enforcement of which the applicant seeks to obtain from the Ukrainian authorities, was delivered by the Barvinkovo Court on 17 May 2010. It was apparently a clerical error that the applicant was provided with the judgment dated 30 April 2010. The Court, therefore, rejects the Government’s objection that the application is an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.18. The Court notes that the above complaints of the applicants enumerated in Appendix 2 (see paragraph 10 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.19. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.20.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation