FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 6155/05 and 22 others – see list appended)         JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 9 January 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kyselyova 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 3 December 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in 23 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 and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).2.  The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3.  The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.4.  On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in three 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 requests.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5.  On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission 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.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 set out in the Appendix 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 PROTOCOL No. 18.  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. 1.9.  The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 8 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.10.  The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.11.  Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 56-58 and 66-70, 15 October 2009) the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour. It also considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION12.  In applications nos. 26359/06, 21116/07, 47023/07, 15730/08, 21181/08, 21701/08, 46205/08 and 33523/09 the applicants raised complaints concerning non-enforcement of other domestic court decisions. Having examined the parties’ submissions and the available material, the Court decided to reject these complaints as manifestly ill-founded as whole, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.13.  Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention, which the Court has examined carefully. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”15.  In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03 and 89 other applications, § 24, 6 June 2013; Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65656/11 and 249 other applications, § 19, 20 June 2013; Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 164 other applications, § 24, 20 June 2013) to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.16.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY1.  Decides to join the applications set out in the Appendix; 2.  Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 admissible and the remainder of their applications inadmissible; 3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; 5.  Holds(a)  that within three months the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant (or his or her estate) listed in the Appendix in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts, which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIX No.Applicationno. and date of introductionApplicant namedate of birthRelevant domestic decision   6155/0526/01/2005Zhanna Mykhaylivna KYSELYOVA30/07/1972Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 03/06/2003 (in the light of Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 19/04/2002 and 09/10/2001)   38540/0512/10/20051) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUK07/10/1939 2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNA12/051960 3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURIN10/08/1965 4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINA14/02/1965 5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINA11/12/1954 6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINA24/06/1952 7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKO02/03/1947 8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVA11/06/1980 9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOV27/06/1965 10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVA07/06/1977 11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOV07/08/1946 12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYA06/01/1956 13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVA01/01/19491) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUKTorez Court, 25/05/2004 2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNATorez Court, 25/05/2004 3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURINTorez Court, 25/05/2004 4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINATorez Court, 25/05/2004 5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINATorez Court, 25/05/2004 6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINATorez Court, 25/05/2004 7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKOTorez Court, 25/05/2004 8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVATorez Court, 25/05/2004 9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOVTorez Court, 25/05/2004 10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVATorez Court, 25/05/2004 11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOVTorez Court, 25/05/2004 12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYAShakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004 13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVAShakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004   2468/0610/12/2005Natalya Ivanovna ABAKUMOVA09/03/1969Krasnograd Court, 05/06/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Regiolnal Court of Appeal on 14/08/2007   11534/0606/03/2006Anna Alekseyevna POLYAKOVA01/01/1942 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich PIKULITSKIY29/10/1939Applicant 1:1) Slovyansk Court, 31/07/2003 Applicant 2:2) Slovyansk Court, 13/12/2002   26359/0615/06/2006Dmitriy Iosifovich TURLAKOV01/05/1943Kupyansk Court, 17/02/2006   12326/0701/03/2007Andrey Ivanovich KUPRIYENKO01/01/19481) Khmilnyk Court, 11/08/1997 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005 2) Khmilnyk Court, 23/01/2001 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005   21116/0727/04/2007Grygoriy Grygorovych BODNAR05/10/1947Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 17/10/2005, quashed by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal on 11/02/2008   44334/0727/09/2007Tamara Mykolayivna DENYSYUK10/07/1953Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol, 12/01/2006   47023/0713/10/2007Anatoliy Vladimirovich RUDENKO01/02/1949Krasnyy Luch Court, 14/04/2004 6509/0823/01/2008Svetlana Vasilyevna ZHUKOVA06/09/1962 Dmitriy Olegovich ZHUKOV07/09/1986Selydiv Court, 28/12/2004 11597/0826/02/2008Volodymyr Mykolayovych MELETSKYY28/08/19511) Kozelets Court, 18/04/2005 2) Prydniprovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 28/02/2007 15730/08Viktor NikolayevichVELICHKO11/08/1964Teplodar Court, 04/04/2007 21181/0819/04/2008Aleksandr Grigoryevich POPKOV12/11/19441) Slovyansk Court, 24/11/2000 2) Slovyansk Court, 26/02/2001 3) Slovyansk Court, 10/10/2001 4) Slovyansk Court, 23/11/2004 5) Slovyansk Court, 12/12/2007 6) Slovyansk Court, 11/11/2008 21701/0821/04/2008KARINA, TOVLviv Commercial Court, 07/12/2006 37616/0819/07/2008Vyacheslav Semyonovich USOV31/05/19411) Zhovti Vody Court, 06/10/2000 2) Zhovti Vody Court, 10/06/05 as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal on 25/01/2006 38364/0831/07/2008KORTEKS, VATZhytomyr Regional Commercial Court, 17/10/2005 46205/0812/09/2008Yaroslav Vasilyovych BOYCHUK15/08/19481) Verkhovyna Court, 05/07/2004 as amended by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal on 30/09/2004 2) Verhovyna Court, 26/03/2007 59374/0820/11/2008Gulyam Khabib AKBARI07/01/1959Illichivskyy District Court of Mariupol, 14/12/2006 18906/0925/03/2009Viktor Leonidovich KRYTSYN22/09/1954Sudak Court, 16/01/2006 as amended by judgment of the Crimea Court of Appeal on 20/09/2006  31367/0902/06/2009Vladimir Leonidovich KISHCHENKO01/10/1953Novogrodivka Court, 6/05/2006 33523/0905/06/2009Vitaliy Ivanovich DEMCHENKO29/11/1953Labour Disputes Commission, 17/12/1997 35246/1012/05/2010Igor Petrovych GAVRYLYUK23/06/1952 Olena Petrivna KRYLAS22/09/19521 applicant:1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 20/03/2008, 2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 07/10/2008 3) Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 02/11/2009 2 applicant:1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 24/03/2008 2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 23/02/2009 3) Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 19/01/2010 42850/1021/07/2010Andriy Petrovych KITURA02/10/1943Sykhivskyy District Court of Lviv, 19/10/2007