FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF FILATOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 12424/06 and 15 others – see list appended)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 31 July 2014   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Filatova 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 8 July 2014,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in 16 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. The details of the applicants are specified in the appended table (“the applicants”).2.  In applications nos. 12424/06 and 23509/08 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications.3.  The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates.4.  The Government were represented by their Agent.5.  On 15 December 2011 (in application no. 7436/08) and on 15 September 2011 (in application no. 40893/09) the Government submitted to the Court their 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. Having examined the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court finds that they do not provide a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights does not require continuing the examination of the application.THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6.  On the dates set out in the appended table 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 final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.7.  Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.THE LAWI.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8.  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.  AS TO THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 12424/06 and 23509/089.  The Court notes that applications nos. 12424/06 and 23509/08 concern a property right which is in principle transferable to the heirs. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicants or their next of kin have standing to continue the present proceedings in their stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 110.  The applicants listed in the Appendix 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. 1.11.  The Court 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.12.  The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.13.  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.IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION14.  Some of the applicants 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.15.  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.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16.  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.”17.  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.18.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.19.  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 31 July 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. ZupančičDeputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIX No.Application no. and date of introductionApplicant namedate of birthRelevant domestic decision   12424/0610/03/2006Lyudmila Petrovna FILATOVA04/07/19391) Berdyansk Court, 11/08/1997 2) Berdyansk Court, 19/06/2001   38276/0721/08/2007Igor Grigoryevich PRYADKO09/11/1965Dobropillya Court, 19/05/2006 as amended by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal on 22/09/2006    47843/0717/10/2007Mykola Grygorovych PLOKHOTNYUK19/12/1957Bila Tserkva Court, 15/08/2005, in the light of the judgment of the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 01/12/2006    7436/0824/01/2008Yuriy Pavlovich NIKONENKO14/06/1944Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, 02/11/2004   11754/0827/02/2008Nataliya Aleksandrovna POGURNETS01/07/1962Suvorivskyy District Court of Odessa, 22/06/1998   21974/0818/04/2008SSV,PPSevastopol City Commercial Court, 05/09/2007   23509/0806/05/2008Valentin Valentinovich MOLCHANOV29/01/1960Konotop Court, 17/09/2007   23552/0806/05/2008Grigoriy Vasilyevich ALFYOROV27/04/1960Konotop Court, 18/09/2007   3940/0922/12/2008Ivan Porfyrovych SOKUR08/03/1954Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 01/02/2007 10197/0910/02/2009Sergiy Volodymyrovych DYMYTRIYENKO08/01/1964Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court, 21/11/2006 20270/0925/03/2009SOLO, TOV 1) Donetsk Regional Commercial Court, 29/12/2006 2) Donetsk Regional Commercial Court, 31/05/2007 3) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 15/06/2007 4) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 18/06/2007 5) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 03/11/2008 40893/0916/07/2009Anton Sergiyovych LUTSENKO29/10/1979 Olena Oleksandrivna LUTSENKO26/09/1983Prymorskyy District Court of Mariupol, 03/02/2006  50117/0901/09/2009Vladimir Grigoryevich YAKUNENKOV05/03/19541) Kyyivskyy District Court of Odesa, 12/08/2004, as amended by the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal on 20/09/2005 2) Kyyivskyy District Court of Odesa, 25/06/2007 50417/0911/09/2009VFK INTELSOYUZ, TOV Kirovograd Regional Commercial Court, 02/12/2004  17713/1018/03/2010DONBASNAFTOPRODUKT, DP1) Lugansk Region Commercial Court, 28/02/2007 2) Lugansk Region Commercial Court, 26/03/2008 3) Lugansk Region Commercial Court, 09/11/2009 63898/1009/10/2010Aleksey Grigoriyevich KHLEBNIKOV23/02/19401) Berdyansk Court 04/11/2004 2) Berdyansk Court, 12/07/2005