FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF SHTABOVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 22722/07 and 99 other applications)          JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 25 April 2013   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shtabovenko 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 2 April 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1.  The case originated in 100 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 applicant Mr Viktor Andriyovych Bondar died (application no. 13890/09). His wife, Ms Nadiya Yefremivna Bondar, manifested a wish to pursue the application on his behalf.3.  By letter dated 19 December 2012, the Government informed the Court that the applicant Mr Vladimir Shabodinovich Khamzatov (application no. 33262/10) had died. A copy of the letter was forwarded to the deceased applicant’s address on 19 February 2013 by registered post for comments to be submitted by 11 March 2013. The reader was warned that in the absence of response, the Court would assume that the applicant had died and that no individual was entitled and wished to pursue the application. No reply was received.4.  By letter dated 27 October 2012 the applicant Ms Olena Georgiyivna Mykhaylova (application no. 475/11) informed the Court that she wanted to withdraw the application since the judgment rendered in her favour had been fully enforced.5.  The Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.6.  On 4 October 2012 the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.7.  The Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 63882/09 (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 CASE8.  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.9.  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 APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 13890/0910.  The Court considers that the applicant’s wife in application no. 13890/09 (see paragraph 2 above) has standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s 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. 111.  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 tabulated in Appendices 1 and 212.  The Court considers that the applications tabulated in Appendices 1 and 2 should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.1.  Applications tabulated in Appendix 113.  In their observations the Government submitted that the debtor in respect of the judgments indicated in Appendix 1 was a private company. However, between 28 November 2005 and 30 July 2010 the Fuel and Energy (Complex Enterprises) Register included the debtor in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the 2005 Act on measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises and all enforcement proceedings in respect of it were frozen. Therefore, the Government bore responsibility for the debtor’s actions from the moment when the applicants’ judgments became final and until it was excluded from the Register. They argued that those periods could not be considered excessive. As regards the period after 30 July 2010, the Government, referring to the Court’s case law (see Dovgal v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 50726/06, 20 October 2009), maintained that the State was responsible for the non-enforcement in the applicant’s favour only insofar as the State Bailiffs’ Service was involved, while the applicants had not challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity in the enforcement of their judgments. Given the above the Government claimed that the applications should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.14.  Given its findings in previous similar cases against Ukraine (see, for instance, Andreyenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 22312/03, 19 June 2007 and Gapeyev v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21659/06, 17 November 2009), the Court considers that these applications must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.2.  Applications tabulated in Appendix 215.  The Government submitted in their observations that the debtor in respect of the judgments specified in Appendix 2 was a private legal entity. They reiterated that the State’s positive obligation to enforce the judgments against a private entity extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings. They claimed that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded given that they failed to challenge the actions of the State Bailiffs’ Service.16.  The Court observes that the parties’ submissions did not disclose that there were any factors, attributable to the State, which impeded or blocked the enforcement of the judgments at issue for an excessively long period of time. In any event it appeared after the communication of the applications to the respondent Government that on 5 July 2007, that is more than six months before the applications were lodged with this Court, the debtor had been finally liquidated without legal successor due to bankruptcy and excluded from the State companies register. These applications must, therefore, be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.B.  Applications tabulated in Appendix 317.  In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.18.  The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 33262/10, Mr Vladimir Shabodinovich Khamzatov, has died and that no heir has requested permission to pursue the application.19.  It also notes that the applicant in application no. 475/11, Ms Olena Georgiyivna Mykhaylova, informed the Court that she did not intend to pursue the application since the judgment, rendered in her favour had been fully enforced.20.  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.C.  Applications tabulated in Appendices 4 and 521.  In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.22.  The Court notes that the above complaints of the applicants tabulated in Appendices 4 and 5 (see paragraph 11 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.23.  The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.24.  Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, §§ 56-58 and 66-70), 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 CONVENTION25.  Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention which the Court has carefully examined. 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.26.  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 CONVENTION27.  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.”28.  In the present case, bearing in mind its previous decision on the matter (see Kharuk and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 703/05 and 115 other applications, § 25, 26 July 2012), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award 3,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant in the applications which concern non‑enforcement delays exceeding three years (the applications tabulated in Appendix 4) and EUR 1,500 to each applicant in the other applications (the applications tabulated in Appendix 5). These sums are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.29.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.30.  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 tabulated in Appendices 1 and 2; 2.  Declares inadmissible the applications indicated in Appendices 1 and 2; 3.  Decides to join the applications tabulated in Appendix 3; 4.  Decides to strike the applications enumerated in Appendix 3 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention; 5.  Decides to join the applications tabulated in Appendices 4 and 5; 6.  Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in Appendices 4 and 5, 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 the applications inadmissible; 7.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 8.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; 9.  Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant or his or her estate in the applications tabulated in Appendix 4 and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to each applicant or his or her estate in the applications tabulated in Appendix 5 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 25 April 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIX 1(inadmissible applications) No.Application no. and date of introductionApplicants’ name and date of birth Relevant domestic decision   63284/0917/11/2009Nadiya Kostyantynivna KRAVCHENYUK11/08/1959Oleksandriya Court, 05/05/2009   63328/0917/11/2009Tetyana Yuriyivna PASICHNA19/04/1960Oleksandriya Court, 05/05/2009 APPENDIX 2(inadmissible applications) No.Application no. and date of introductionApplicants’ name and date of birthRelevant domestic decision   6147/1114/01/2011Olga Illivna YAKOVENKO19/08/1951Krukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 04/03/2005   6164/1114/01/2011Stanislav Viktorovych TSARENKO01/01/1971Krukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 20/12/2004   6214/1114/01/2010Volodymyr Panteliyovych PALIYENKO19/07/1944Krukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 24/05/2004  APPENDIX 3(applications struck out of the Court’s list of cases) No.Application no. and date of introductionApplicants’ name and date of birthRelevant domestic decision   33262/1025/05/2010Vladimir Shabodinovich KHAMZATOV01/01/19481) Torez Court, 16/04/2008 2) Torez Court, 16/07/2008 3) Torez Court, 18/07/2008   475/1113/12/2010Olena Georgiyivna MYKHAYLOVA01/01/1964Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv, 07/04/2010  APPENDIX 4(non-enforcement delays three years and more) No.Application no. and date of introduction Applicants’ name and date of birthRelevant domestic decisions   22722/0705/05/2007Vasyl Petrovych SHTABOVENKO27/12/1952Tsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv, 18/04/2002   13890/0918/02/2009Viktor Andriyovych BONDAR09/03/1939Tetiyiv Court, 26/11/2007 57014/0919/10/2009Valeriy Volodymyrovych SACHEK02/04/1966Ovruch Court, 03/04/2002 59484/0902/11/2009Mariya Yosypivna TABACHUK04/07/1949Popilnyanskyy District Court of the Zhytomyr Region, 30/10/2006, as amended by the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal, 17/01/2008 59562/0928/10/2009Oksana Vladimirovna SECHKAREVA18/10/1982Krasnyy Luch Court, 11/10/2006 59650/0922/10/2009Oleksandr Volodymyrovych BURYAK27/06/19551) Oleksandriya Court, 29/01/2008, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 05/11/2008 2) Oleksandriya Court, 15/04/2008, as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 04/12/2008 59976/0909/11/2009Mykola Viktorovych TOCHENYY13/05/1963Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv, 16/09/2003, quashed by the Higher Administrative Court on 02/11/2010 60221/0926/10/2009Anatoliy Ivanovych GUMONITSKYY01/01/1950Tetiyiv Court, 31/01/2008 60971/0905/11/2009Mykola Stepanovych VASYLYK21/01/1967Kolomyya Court, 09/12/2004 61111/0904/11/2009Viktor Sergiyovych YALPUTA19/09/1954Oleksandriya Court, 15/05/2008 61123/0901/11/2009Anatoliy Ivanovich YELISEYEV06/01/19471) Novogrodivka Court, 31/07/2002 2) Decision of a Labour Disputes Commission of the Novogrodivska Mine, lodged with the State Bailiffs’ Service on 16 April 2004.  61576/0916/11/2009Andriy Mykolayovych BARDAS07/09/1968Military Court of the Cherkassy Garrison, 31/08/2005 61892/0911/11/2009Mykola Tykhonovych GORBACHUK25/01/1949Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, 16/01/2006 62027/0911/11/2009Svitlana Mykolayivna BYSHA06/01/1946Oleksandriya Court, 11/02/2008 62319/0912/11/2009Olena Fedorivna DAVYSKYBA25/08/1932Trostyanets Court, 15/05/2007 62469/0919/11/2009Anatoliy Andriyovych MAKSYMENKO29/09/1959Lubny Court, 19/06/2007 63000/0927/10/2009Svetlana Nikiforovna CHERNOVA15/04/1964Labour Disputes Commission of the Ukrayinskyy Naukovo-Doslidnyy Instytut Skla, State Enterprise, 05/02/2007 63028/0927/10/2009Larisa Ivanovna KLIPENKO21/06/1951Labour Disputes Commission of the Ukrayinskyy Naukovo-Doslidnyy Instytut Skla, State Enterprise , 05/02/2007 63090/0927/10/2009Mariya Vasilyevna BUT12/02/1947Labour Disputes Commission of the Ukrayinskyy Naukovo-Doslidniy Instytut Skla, State Enterprise, 27/02/2007 63100/0927/10/2009Nina Vasilyevna LITVINOVA25/06/1950Kostyantynivka Court, 15/10/2004 63106/0927/10/2009Lyudmila Alekseyevna KOROLEVA16/01/1942Kostyantynivka Court, 29/03/2001 63114/0927/10/2009Lidiya Ivanovna TISHCHENKO06/10/1941Kostyantynivka Court, 25/08/2005 63123/0927/10/2009Vladimir Vladimirovich PASECHNIK13/11/1970Kostyantynivka Court, 22/12/1997  63132/0927/10/2009Igor Viktorovich MIROSHNICHENKO02/04/1971Kostyantynivka Court, 14/03/2003  63150/0927/10/2009Eduard Mikhaylovich SOLOVYEV27/06/19691) Kostyantynivka Court, 22/12/1997 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 27/01/2003 63157/0927/10/2009Lyudmila Andreyevna GORCHAKOVA22/11/1937Kostyantynivka Court, 02/04/2001 63163/0927/10/2009Yekaterina Vasilyevna NESTERENKO21/10/19561) Kostyantynivka Court, 02/08/2002 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 18/04/2003 63180/0927/10/2009Yevgeniy Nikolayevich GUZHVA02/01/19681) Kostyantynivka Court, 30/09/2004 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 20/10/2004 3) Labour Disputes Commission of the Avtosklo, State Enterprise, 14/07/2006 63198/0927/10/2009Lyudmila Alekseyevna SEMCHISHYNA07/08/1927Kostyantynivka Court, 02/04/2001 63206/0927/10/2009Yekaterina Viktorovna IVASHCHENKO19/03/1952Labour Disputes Commission of the Ukrayinskyy Naukovo-Doslidnyy Instytut Skla, State Enterprise, 05/02/2007 63212/0927/10/2009Zhanetta Petrovna SHUBINA08/11/1932Labour Disputes Commission of the Avtosklo, State Enterprise, 12/03/2001 63213/0927/10/2009Natalya Vladimirovna MADYUDYA15/10/19711) Labour Disputes Commission of the Avtosklo, State Enterprise , 27/12/2000 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 08/05/2009 63217/0927/10/2009Vadim Aleksandrovich STAROSTENKO29/05/1962Kostyantynivka Court, 29/12/2001 63224/0927/10/2009Nina Stepanovna GEBUZA09/10/19371) Kostyantynivka Court, 08/11/2002 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 08/11/2002 63226/0927/10/2009Valentina Ivanovna KUSHCHENKOVA07/04/19571) Labour Disputes Commission of the Avtosklo, State Enterprise , 11/12/1997 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 19/03/2001 63230/0927/10/2009Nina Alekseyevna VOLKOVA23/11/1957Kostyantynivka Court, 25/01/2002 63235/0927/10/2009Tatyana Gennadyevna SAKHNO31/01/1956Labour Disputes Commission of the Ukrayinskyy Naukovo-Doslidnyy Instytut Skla, State Enterprise , 05/11/2007 63365/0927/10/2009Valentin Borisovich GOLOVCHENKO07/07/19481) Kostyantynivka Court, 08/04/2002 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 23/01/2009 63369/0918/11/2009Applicant 2: Ivan Petrovich KOROLKOV01/01/19401) Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, 16/02/2007 2) Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, 20/03/2007 63374/0927/10/2009Lidiya Prokofyevna ORLOVA05/04/1939Kostyantynivka Court, 17/09/2004 63379/0927/10/2009Mikhail Mikhaylovich NEDOPEKIN08/10/1950Labour Disputes Commission of the Avtosklo, State Enterprise , 12/04/2003 63385/0927/10/2009Stanislav Stepanovich GURKOVSKIY11/09/1959Kostyantynivka Court, 26/01/2009 63393/0927/10/2009Irina Ivanovna SHTOFEL10/02/1955Kostyantynivka Court, 03/03/2005 63399/0927/10/2009Aleksandr Mikhaylovich SHTOFEL22/10/19491) Kostyantynivka Court, 03/04/2003 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 13/06/2006 63401/0927/10/2009Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KOVAL17/12/1950Kostyantynivka Court, 23/09/2002 63408/0927/10/2009Vladimir Ivanovich KIYAN02/04/1954Kostyantynivka Court, 13/11/2001 63413/0927/10/2009Nikolay Vasilyevich DUDNIK20/01/19371) Labour Disputes Commission of the Tekhbudsklo, State Enterprise, 25/09/2002 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 03/03/2009 63418/0927/10/2009Valentina Ivanovna LISTRATENKO01/10/1946Kostyantynivka Court, 15/11/2001 63425/0927/10/2009Galina Vladimirovna DUNAYTSEVA28/02/1949Kostyantynivka Court, 23/10/2002 63435/0927/10/2009Alla Nikolayevna BOZHKO18/03/1964Kostyantynivka Court, 05/09/2002 63479/0927/10/2009Olga Yefimovna GLADILINA01/12/19471) Kostyantynivka Court, 14/05/2003 2) Kostyantynivka Court, 28/04/2004 63569/0917/11/2009Sergiy Stepanovych NAKONECHNYY01/01/1959Tetiyiv Court, 04/12/2007 63866/0927/10/2009Valentina Demyanovna KUZOVENINA30/12/1948Krasnyy Luch Court, 03/10/2007 63882/0923/11/2009Anastasiya Semenovna DIKAREVA31/10/1934Sieverodonetsk Court, 18/07/2008 64434/0926/11/2009Lyubov Yakivna LYAKHOVA24/04/19481) Bakhchisaray Court, 11/02/2004 2) Bakhchisaray Court, 19/04/2007 65379/0930/11/2009Sergey Aleksandrovich MIKHAYLOV02/10/1966Krasnyy Luch Court, 06/10/2008 65682/0924/11/2009Andrey Vladimirovich LOBANOV11/11/1976Novogrodivka Court, 02/11/2005 67048/0910/12/2009Pavlo Vasylyovych KOZIYCHUK04/01/1931Bershad Court, 28/05/2009 1197/1022/12/2009Nina Dmytrivna VALENTYUK13/09/1955 Mariya Opanasivna VALENTYUK20/11/1929 Dmytro Anatoliyovych VALENTYUK01/01/1984 Valentyna Anatoliyivna KLIMCHUK30/07/1976Khmelnytskyy Court, 07/04/2005, as amended by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal on 21/10/2005 19486/1018/03/2010Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich VLADIMIRSKIY12/09/19571) Bryanka Court, 18/04/2006 2) Bryanka Court, 17/06/2008 24423/1019/04/2010Olena Vasylivna MORDOVINA28/07/19591) Labour Disputes Commission of the Pervomayskyy State Enterprise «Khimprom», 10/12/2007 2) Labour Disputes Commission of the Pervomayskyy State Enterprise «Khimprom», 18/02/2008 3) Pervomayskyy Court, 26/06/2008 25755/1023/04/2010Igor Oleksandrovych BALESNYY16/11/1975Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003 37249/1021/06/2010Mykola Grygorovych PETNYAK20/02/1966Galytskyy District Court of Lviv, 22/07/2009 46988/1023/07/2010Sergey Ivanovich MAYMURENKO02/05/19471) Kramatorsk Court, 21/01/2009 2) Kramatorsk Court, 21/01/2009 48871/1030/07/2010Yaroslava Petrivna VIVCHAR10/04/1955Lychakivskyy District Court of Lviv, 23/06/2009 63837/1018/10/2010Anatoliy Grygorovych VORONKO24/01/1939Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv, 16/05/2007 67118/1008/11/2010Vasyl Dmytrovych NYZOVETS01/09/19231) Shepetivka Court, 18/12/2007, as amended by the Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal on 30/09/2008 2) Shepetivka Court, 26/02/2009 70818/1017/11/2010Viktor Pavlovych OBLOG08/11/1955ShostkaShostka Court, 26/12/2008 70849/1022/11/2010MZHK MRIYA, TOVLugansk Regional Commercial Court, 02/04/2007 71165/1020/11/2010Anatoliy Petrovych SANEVYCH04/11/1962Zhytomyr Regional Administrative Court, 27/09/2007 72636/1029/11/2010Valentina Viktorovna PROKOPENKO19/05/1962Pervomayskyy Court, 22/08/2008 73013/1029/11/2010Valentina Nikolayevna SOKOLOVA01/01/1965Pervomayskyy Court, 10/07/2008 73067/1001/12/2010Olga Petrivna KALASHNYUK01/01/1939Tetiyiv Court, 29/11/2007 73241/1030/11/2010Tatyana Ivanovna POKHODZHAY23/08/19531) Labour Disputes Commission of the Pervomayskyy State Enterprise “Khimprom”, 10/12/2007 2) Pervomayskyy Court, 25/07/2008 73818/1020/11/2010Iryna Ivanivna GULCHAK01/01/1954Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 29/07/2002 73882/1026/10/2010Sergey Nikolayevich PUGACH17/02/1967Novogrodivka Court, 06/11/1996  74828/1029/11/2010Galina Vasilyevna MAKSIMOVICH01/01/1952Pervomayskyy Court, 09/07/2008 1330/1122/12/2010Viktor Ivanovych KOLOSOV01/01/19461) Lysychansk Court, 03/02/2005 2) Lysychansk Court, 05/04/2005 1397/1121/12/2010Anatoliy Dmytrovych KOLYADA15/11/1957Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08/10/2009 1437/1120/12/2010Anatoliy Kirillovich YOVZHENKO28/03/19491) Selydove Court, 18/02/2009 2) Selydove Court, 20/02/2009 2016/1127/12/2010Vladimir Ivanovich MALYUK08/08/1955Lysychansk Court, 25/11/2008 3203/1117/11/2010Viktor Pavlovych OBLOG08/11/1955Shostka Court, 30/06/2009 4481/1128/12/2010Vladimir Ivanovich MALYUK08/08/1955Lysychansk Court, 04/09/2008 5406/1112/01/2011Mykola Yuriyovych PRYSHCHEPA01/01/1948Tetiyiv Court, 26/11/2007 5779/1113/11/2011Nikolay Pavlovich ZAKHAROV01/05/1949Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 20/05/2003 5836/1115/01/2011Volodymyr Vasylyovych ZAMRYKOTA04/09/1960Fastiv Court, 05/03/2008 5844/1112/01/2011Tamara Volodymyrivna ILYASHEVA25/04/1951Lysychansk Court, 02/02/2005 5965/1113/01/2011Svitlana Fedorivna SHEMYAKINA09/10/1944Lysychansk Court, 20/01/2005 APPENDIX 5(non-enforcement delays less than three years) No.Application no. and date of introductionApplicant namedate of birthRelevant domestic decisions 63369/0918/11/2009Applicant 1: Vladislav Valentinovich VOROBYEV20/11/19401) Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, 16/02/2007 2) Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv, 20/03/2007 27326/1013/04/2010Nikolay Vasilyevich PETUSHKOV 13/12/1956 Fedor Viktorovich MAKAROV26/09/1954Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, 16/10/2009 56006/1014/09/2010Oleksandr Grygorovych MASHCHENKO20/08/1981Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal, 19/05/2010 477/1113/12/2010Tetyana Pavlivna DOLGOVA01/01/1952Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv, 12/04/2010             480/1113/12/2010Olena Anatoliyivna OLIYNYK01/01/1953Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv, 05/10/2009             5747/1115/01/2011Sergey Georgiyevich CHURSIN01/01/1956Tsentralno-Miskyy Court of Makiyivka, 28/04/2010