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. 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.V.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION17.  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.18.  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.VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19.  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.”20.  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 (to the first applicant in application no. 36411/06). This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.21.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.22.  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 application no. 36411/06 partly inadmissible insofar as it has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants; 3.  Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix (the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) 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; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 5.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; 6.  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 (to the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) 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 7 November 2013, 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 birthplace of residenceRelevant domestic decision   13977/0515/02/2005Tatiana Leonidovna VINNIK03/10/1958Lysychansk1) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 15/05/2003 2) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 02/11/2004   36411/0618/08/2006Petro Stanislavovych ABRAMOV (“the first applicant”)[1]06/01/1968Poltava1) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 12/08/2003, as amended by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 24/03/2004 2) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 25/05/2005 3) Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 16/06/2005   23939/0716/05/2007Kostyantyn Volodymyrovych LOGUTOV25/06/1976KyivVyshgorod Court, 17/03/2005   55215/0703/12/2007Iryna Yuriyivna SHAPARENKO08/12/1957TarashchaSolomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, 21/10/2008   3001/0804/01/2008Inna Valeryivna MANOYLYK07/11/1976ChernigivChernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09/07/2004   7932/0828/01/2008Valentina Ivanovna TARASOVA13/10/1954YenakiyeveDonetsk Regional Commercial Court, 23/07/2003 (no. 33/221?)   9091/0805/02/2008Vladimir Ivanovich BONDAR09/06/1934OdesaMalynovskyy District Court of Odesa, 03/06/2003   34957/0804/07/2008Kateryna Dmytrivna KOLESNIKOVA23/09/1950PoltavaPoltava Regional Court of Appeal, 24/10/2006   42506/0814/08/2008Nina Mykolayivna KLINCHUK28/10/1958KorostenKorosten Court, 24/02/2006 48488/0815/07/2008Vitaliy Pavlovych ONYSHCHAK19/04/1952KhrystynivkaUman Court, 03/04/2008 17140/0916/01/2009Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO05/01/1949Vinnytsya1) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 23/11/2006 2) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 12/11/2008 3) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/12/2006 4) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007(case no. 2-1772) 5) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007 (case no. 2-a-824-07) 6) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/07/2008 18168/0922/03/2009Sergey Panasovich IVASHCHENKO20/10/1916Andreyevo-IvanovoMykolayivskyy District Court of the Odesa Region, 03/10/2007 20748/0901/04/2009Nikolay Ivanovich CHAYENKO30/08/1947LeninskeSverdlovsk Court, 17/04/2007 23273/0917/04/2009Anatoliy Ivanovych MATSNEV06/10/1950VinnytsyaZamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 30/03/2007 23366/0904/04/2009Sergiy Viktorovych KISELYOV28/09/1965VatutineVatutine Court, 03/08/2007, quashed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 20/05/2010 23702/0916/04/2009Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SKUDIN07/08/1986MariupolPrymorskyy District Court of Mariupol, 30/05/2008 30370/0926/05/2009Viktor Mykolayovych KOVAL07/05/1954Oleksandriya1) Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/07/2008 2) Oleksandriya Court, 10.04.2008. 32650/0926/05/2009Sergey Nikolayevich PELIKHOS15/06/1971MakiyivkaChervonogvardiyskyy District Court of Makiyivka, 12/04/2007 46819/0919/08/2009Leonid Ivanovych GRYGORUK23/04/1956KyivDarnytskyy District Court of Kyiv, 12/02/2008 (as amended by the Higher Administrative Court on 26/07/2011) 62241/0903/11/2009Daniya Galimzhanovna SHAKIRZYANOVA24/02/1954ZhuravlivkaShakhtarsk Court, 27/12/2005 2831/1016/12/2009Valentina Georgiyevna OVCHINNIKOVA23/11/1932MykolayivTsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv, 12/07/2007  4855/1006/01/2010Mikhail Mefodyevich GRIGORYEV27/05/1951LuganskArtemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 13/10/2008 4862/1006/01/2010Vladimir Fedorovich DUDENKO22/04/1951LuganskArtemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 10/11/2008 25288/1023/04/2010Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SHMULYA12/02/1945Koroviy YarKrasnyy Lyman Court, 17/08/1999 25762/1023/04/2010Vasyl Ivanovych TYSHCHENKO04/05/1950Koroviy YarKrasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003 28839/1007/05/2010Iryna Myroslavivna CHAYKOVSKA22/08/1981TernopilTernopil Court, 11/05/2009 (date stated in the text of the judgment 11/06/2009) 42011/1013/07/2010Nina Panteleymonovna ASTAPENKO01/01/1939TsyurupynskTsuyrupinsk Court, 29/03/2000 46017/1026/07/2010Mykhaylo Mykolayovych SIRENKO19/11/1957SelydoveSylidove Court, 17/05/2004 48219/1002/08/2010Petr Stepanovich TRIFONOV06/02/1953Kiliya1) Kiliya Court, 28/02/2007 2) Kiliya Court, 28/08/2002 3) Kiliya Court, 10/02/2000 51820/1020/07/2010Aleksandr Ivanovich PODOPRIGORA15/12/1957Kryvyy RigSaksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 11/07/2008 as amended by judgment of the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 22/06/2009 64871/1026/10/2010Yelena Aleksandrovna BELOCHENKO24/05/1926SevastopolKotovsk Court, 27/05/2008, quashed by the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 01/06/2011  68156/1001/07/2010Ivan Tymofiyovych BAVINOV28/10/1934KremenchukAvtozavodskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 04/09/2003 68607/1005/11/2010Larisa Fedorovna KOLESNIKOVA03/04/1951MariupolNovoazovsk Court, 07/07/2006 69438/1009/11/2010Ruslan Yuriyovych LYAKH13/08/1966KolomyyaZamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/11/2006 74338/1020/11/2010FPK GROSS OOO KharkivKyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 21/04/2000 74608/1007/12/2010Yevgeniy Stepanovich UGLEV23/07/1952CherkasySosnovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 11/02/2008 572/1112/12/20101) Volodymyr Mykolayovych OLKHOVSKYY28/01/1981Poltava 2) Olena Oleksandrivna OLKHOVSKA28/01/1981PoltavaApplicant 1Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009 Applicant 2Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009 656/1120/12/2010Viktor Pavlovich ZAKHAROV06/09/1950Kripenskiy1) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005; 2) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005 768/1113/12/2010Magdalina Vasilyevna LADZHUN20/08/1949MukachevoZakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal, 14/07/2005  1205/1122/12/2010Ivan Prokofyevich SKREBTSOV02/11/1949Lugansk1) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 20/11/2007, as amended by the Higher Administrative Court, 22/07/2010 2) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 25/11/2008 1503/1125/12/2010Nataliya Viktorivna ARKHYPOVA20/10/1970LysychanskLysychansk Court, 15/02/2005 1677/1126/12/2010Nataliya Nikolayevna BACHKALOVA14/06/1953Poltava1) Poltava Circuit Administrative Court, 08/10/2008 2) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 03/08/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15/05/2008 3) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 02/11/2009 2491/1129/12/2010IBRIS, TOVDnipropetrovskKyiv Commercial Court 27/02/2006 (amended on 19/04/2006 by the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal and on 31/01/2007 by the Higher Administrative Court) 4510/1110/01/2011Vladimir Alekseyevich POPOV04/01/1944LuganskKamyanobridskyy District Court of Lugansk, 24/06/2009 6638/1115/01/2011Oleksandr Onysymovych KUDLAYENKO18/01/1955Vinnytsya1) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 21/12/2006 2) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/04/2007 31562/1324/02/2010Anatoliy Sydorovych PASTUSHENKO08/09/1947DonetskKirovskyy District Court of Donetsk, 09/12/2008 [1].  Second, third and fourth applicants (inadmissible): Mariya Leontiyivna ABRAMOVA, Olga Petrivna ABRAMOVA, Sofiya Petrivna ABRAMOVA