CASE OF BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

GRAND CHAMBER

CASE OF BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 46852/13 et al.)

JUDGMENT

(Striking out)

This version was rectified on 1 December 2017

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

STRASBOURG

12 October 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi, President,
Angelika Nußberger,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Helena Jäderblom,
Luis López Guerra,
András Sajó,
Ledi Bianku,
Işıl Karakaş,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Julia Laffranque,
André Potocki,
Paul Mahoney,
Aleš Pejchal,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco,
Iulia Motoc,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Roderick Liddell, Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 26 May and 25 August 2016 and 26 June 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in five applications (nos. 46852/13, 47786/13, 56605/13, 54125/13and 3653/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Ukrainian nationals, Ms Lidiya Ivanivna Burmych, Mr Grygoriy Yaremchuk, Mr Oleg Varava and Mr Yuriy Neborachko as well as a private joint-stock company, Izolyatsiya, PAT, registered in Donetsk, Ukraine (“the applicants”), on 9 July 2013, 16 July 2013, 8 August 2013, 16 August 2013 and 11 December 2013, respectively.

2. The first four applicants were represented respectively by Ms T.O. Nevmerzhytska, a lawyer practising in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, Mr S.V. Galapyuk, a lawyer practising in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, Mr I.V. Zybachynskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv, Ukraine and Ms O.O. Dmytrychenko, a lawyer practising in Kremenchuk, Ukraine. The fifth applicant was represented by Mr A. Taranovskyy, a lawyer practicing in Kyiv, Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr Ivan Lishchyna.

3. The applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. They alleged a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The first and fifth applicants raised a further complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as regard the lack of effective remedy in domestic law.

4. Between 10 December 2013 and 20 January 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government.

5. On 8 December 2015, after having consulted the parties, a Chamber of the Fifth Section of the Court, composed of Judges Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Helena Jäderblom and Aleš Pejchal, decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in the above cases, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 of the Rules of Court).

6. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court.

7. Following the Grand Chamber’s decision of 16 March 2016 not to hold a hearing, the applicants and the Government each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications referred to in paragraph 1 above.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Background

1. Introduction

8. The applications in the present case concern prolonged non‑enforcement of domestic final judicial decisions. They raise issues similar to those examined in the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009; hereinafter “Ivanov” or “the Ivanov judgment”). They are part of a group of 12,143 Ivanov-type follow-up applications (hereinafter also referred to as “Ivanov‑type cases”).

9. Accordingly, before providing a description of the relevant facts and proceeding to the examination of the applicants’ Convention grievances in the present case, the Court considers it necessary to present the procedure hitherto adopted in applications concerning non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions in Ukraine.

10. Prior to the adoption of the Ivanov pilot judgment the Court had dealt with a number of cases concerning the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions in Ukraine. The first decision on this issue was rendered in the case of Kaysin and Others v. Ukraine ((friendly settlement), no. 46144/99, 3 May 2001). Even though the case was settled by the parties and the applicants received the sums indicated in the friendly settlement agreement, the general issue of non‑enforcement remained unresolved largely owing to the lack of funds of the State entities, State-owned or State‑controlled debtors (hereinafter “State debtors”). Subsequent cases concerning non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions related to payments of salaries and allowances to military servicemen, employees of the mining companies, judges, school teachers, debts of municipalities or State hospitals, State-owned banks, State-owned enterprises and the Cabinet of Ministers (see, among many other examples, the judgments in the cases of Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, 29 June 2004, Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, 27 July 2004, Zubko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 3955/04 and 3 others, ECHR 2006‑VI (extracts), Belanova v. Ukraine, no. 1093/02, 29 November 2005, Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, 15 December 2005, Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, 20 July 2004, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, 18 January 2005).

2. The pilot judgment in the Ivanov case

11. As a result of an increasing number of applications concerning prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions in Ukraine, the Court decided to have recourse to the pilot judgment procedure and selected the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (see paragraph 8 above) as representative of this problem. For the facts of this case reference is made to paragraphs 8-20 of the pilot judgment.

12. In its Interim Resolution of 6 March 2008, the Committee of Ministers had already recognised the existence of a structural problem (see Ivanov, cited above, § 38, see also paragraph 124 below).

13. In its pilot judgment of 15 October 2009 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final judicial decisions. The Court noted that the delays had been caused by a combination of factors, including the lack of budgetary funds, the bailiffs’ omissions and shortcomings in the national legislation, as a result of which Mr Ivanov and other applicants in a similar situation were unable to have the judgments enforced (see Ivanov, cited above, §§ 83-84). All those factors had been within the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and thus Ukraine was fully responsible for such non-enforcement (ibid. § 85). The Court further found that there had been no remedy at national level satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov’s complaints about the non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour (ibid. §§ 66-70).

14. Under Article 46, the Court held that the Ivanov case concerned two recurring problems: (a) the prolonged non-enforcement of final domestic decisions and (b) the lack of an effective domestic remedy to deal with it. These problems lay behind the violations of the Convention found by the Court since 2004 in over 300 cases concerning Ukraine. The Ivanov case demonstrated that these problems had remained without a solution despite the Court’s clear rulings urging Ukraine to take appropriate measures to resolve those issues (see Ivanov, cited above, §§ 73, 74 and 83).

15. In view of the fact that approximately 1,400 similar applications against Ukraine were pending before the Court at that time (ibid. § 86), the Court held in the relevant operative provisions of its judgment as follows:

“...

4. ... that the [violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found in the case] originated in a practice incompatible with the Convention which consists in the respondent State’s recurrent failure to comply in due time with domestic decisions for the enforcement of which it is responsible and in respect of which aggrieved parties have no effective domestic remedy;

5. ... that the respondent State must set up without delay, and at the latest within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies capable of securing adequate and sufficient redress for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law;

6. ... that the respondent State must grant such redress, within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, to all applicants whose applications pending before the Court were communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court before the delivery of the present judgment or will be communicated further to this judgment and concern arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State was responsible, including where complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised;

7. ... that pending the adoption of the above measures, the Court will adjourn, for one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final, the proceedings in all cases in which the applicants raise arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non-enforcement of domestic decisions for which the State is responsible, including cases in which complaints alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of such non-enforcement are also raised, without prejudice to the Court’s power at any moment to declare any such case inadmissible or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement between the parties or the resolution of the matter by other means in accordance with Articles 37 or 39 of the Convention;

...”

In the event of the State’s failure to adopt general remedial measures, the Court stated that it “will have no choice but to resume the examination of all similar applications pending before it and to take them to judgment so as to ensure effective observance of the Convention” (ibid. § 100). The Court decided to adjourn proceedings in respect of all new applications lodged after delivery of the pilot judgment (ibid. § 97). As regards applications lodged prior to the delivery of the judgment, it decided that it would give notice of them to the Government and adjourn adversarial proceedings in them. Cases already communicated but undecided on the merits would likewise be adjourned for one year from the date on which the judgment had become final (ibid. § 98). Finally, as regards the application of Article 41 in the case, the Court held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant the outstanding debt under the domestic judgments and 174 euros (EUR) to cover inflation linked adjustments in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (ibid. §§ 106‑107 and the eighth operative provision).

3. Communication of post-Ivanov follow-up cases and the Ukrainian Government’s extension requests

16. In a letter of 27 January 2010 the Court informed the Ukrainian Government of its intention to communicate under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court all Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court on the date of delivery of the Ivanov pilot judgment of 15 October 2009 which became final on 15 January 2010 (see point of the 6 operative provision and paragraph 15 above).

17. On 11 February 2010 the President of the Fifth Section accordingly decided, under the aforementioned Rule, to communicate the cases concerned to the respondent Government for information and possible action and, at the same time, to adjourn them formally for a period of one year from the date on which the judgment had become final (i.e. until 15 January 2011).

18. By December 2010 the Government had submitted friendly settlement proposals and unilateral declarations in 372 cases. These cases were struck out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, following the applicants’ acceptance of friendly settlement proposals or the Court’s acceptance of the Government’s unilateral declarations.

19. On 10 December 2010 the Government requested a one-year extension of the time-limit fixed in the pilot judgment in order to settle pending cases and to adopt the required general measures at domestic level.

20. On 18 January 2011 the Court decided to grant the Government’s request in part and to extend the time limit until 15 July 2011.

21. On 13 July 2011 the Government requested a further extension of six months. They also submitted friendly settlement proposals and unilateral declarations in nearly 1,000 cases. The Court eventually decided to strike 347 of these cases out of its list of cases.

22. On 6 September 2011 the Government’s second request for an extension of the time-limit was refused. The Court considered that it fell to the Committee of Ministers to find the most appropriate and expedient means to bring about the necessary reforms in Ukraine as part of the process of supervising the execution of the pilot judgment. The question of further procedure in cases raising similar issues was adjourned and all such cases were put on hold.

4. Decision to resume examination of Ivanov-type cases

23. On 21 February 2012 the Court examined the situation in about 2,500 follow-up cases pending before it. While a number of cases had been struck out of its list following either a friendly settlement agreement or acceptance of a unilateral declaration, no settlement had been proposed in some 700 communicated cases. In the meantime, since 1 January 2011, approximately 1,000 further similar applications had been lodged with the Court.

24. Referring to its warning in the pilot judgment (see Ivanov, § 100 and paragraph 15 above) that in the event of a failure to adopt the necessary general remedial measures at national level it would have no choice but to take pending applications to judgment, the Court decided to resume its examination of follow-up applications. It further expressed the hope that the Ukrainian authorities would continue cooperating with the Committee of Ministers in order to implement the pilot judgment without delay and with due regard to the relevant recommendations, resolutions and decisions of that body.

25. On 5 June 2012, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted new legislation, namely “the Act on State Guarantees concerning execution of judicial decisions with amendments” (Закон України “Про гарантії держави щодо виконання судових рішень”; “the 2012 Act”). The 2012 Act, which was amended on two occasions, namely on 15 May 2013 and 19 September 2013, introduced a procedure whereby the debts due under the domestic court judgments were to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine. It required applicants to apply to the State Treasury for such payments (see also paragraphs 103-104 below).

26. Despite the introduction of a new remedy under the 2012 Act, as from the end of 2013 the influx of Ivanov type cases significantly increased.

27. On 3 February 2015 the Court gave notice to the Ukrainian Government of Filipov and 3 other applications (no. 35660/13), where the applicants complained that the remedy introduced by the 2012 Act was ineffective.

5. Adoption of the first grouped judgment and communication to the Government of Ivanov-type cases

28. In the meantime, on 3 July 2012, the Court had adopted its judgment in Kharuk and Others v. Ukraine, ([Committee] no. 703/05, 26 July 2012), whereby it found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of prolonged non‑enforcement of final judicial decisions in Ukraine in respect of a group of applicants for the first time. That judgment concerned 116 applications. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention on just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 for delays of up to three years and EUR 3,000 for delays exceeding three years.

29. In accordance with the Court’s decision to resume examination of pending cases (see paragraphs 23-24 above), follow-up applications were communicated to the Government in groups. The Government were invited to submit grouped unilateral declarations acknowledging the violations of the Convention and proposing just satisfaction for any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage in line with the awards in Kharuk and Others. They were informed that if they failed to submit such unilateral declarations, the cases would be processed by way of similar grouped judgments.

30. In 2013 the Court communicated 2,750 Ivanov-type applications to the Ukrainian Government and rendered judgments or decisions in 2,459 Ivanov‑type cases.

31. In sum, the majority of the Ivanov-type cases which had been lodged with the Court before 2013 had been processed by way of judgments or decisions.

6. Decision to award a single fixed-rate sum in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage

32. As from 20 June 2013 the Court adopted a policy in Ivanov-type cases of awarding fixed-rate sums of EUR 2,000 for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. As regards pecuniary damage, it also held that “the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable” (see, among other authorities, Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 163 other applications, §§ 24-25 and the sixth operative provision, 20 June 2013).

7. Inadmissibility decision in the Velikoda case

33. On 3 June 2014 the Court declared inadmissible the application in Velikoda v. Ukraine (no. 43331/12). The applicant alleged a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the fact that, following a final judgment in the applicant’s favour ordering the national authorities to pay a social benefit, legislation had entered into force drastically reducing the amounts of the social payments in question (Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution no. 745).

34. The Court held, among other things, that the relevant legislative measures were not unreasonably disproportionate having been adopted as a result of economic policy considerations and the financial difficulties faced by the State.

35. Following the Velikoda leading decision, approximately 5,600 cases that had previously been classified as Ivanov-type were declared inadmissible.

8. Adoption of temporary measures

36. On 2 September 2014 the Court adjourned its examination of Ivanov-type cases for one year as a result of the sharp increase in the number of new applications lodged (in January 2014 approximately 6,000 such applications were pending and by September the number had increased to 8,200). The Court decided to reconsider the situation within a period of six months.

9. The present situation

37. On 20 January 2015 the Court revisited its decision of 2 September 2014 to adjourn the Ivanov-type cases, and decided to resume its examination of these applications. In January 2015 the Court communicated a group of 5,000 such cases to the Ukrainian Government (see Samoylenko and 4,999 Others, nos. 11212/08 - 2803/15).

38. In view of the large number of communicated cases, the Government asked the Court to allow them to submit observations in groups of 250 cases or a maximum of 500 cases per month starting from 23 May 2015.

39. On 14 April 2015 the Court allowed the Government to submit observations in 250 cases per month, starting from 23 May 2015.

40. Between 22 May 2015 and 26 February 2016 the Government submitted unilateral declarations proposing to pay applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage, together with an undertaking to enforce the domestic judgments, in 2,234 cases which had been communicated in January 2015 as part of the Samoylenko and 4,999 others group.

41. On 16 June 2015 the Court examined the terms of the unilateral declarations submitted by the Government on 22 May 2015 in a group of 340 applications and decided that the above amount was sufficient taken together with the Government’s undertaking. Subsequent to this decision, 2,041 applications were struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

Following the Chamber’s relinquishment of jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in the present applications (see paragraph 5 above), the Government were informed that the Court would not deliver further judgments in the Ivanov-type cases pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber. Consequently, the Government ceased submitting unilateral declarations.

42. The Court has received letters from some applicants complaining that the Government had failed to honour their undertakings in the unilateral declarations on the basis of which the Court had struck the applications in question out of its list of cases. Moreover, in a significant number of cases which the Court had disposed of by means of a judgment, the applicants wrote back complaining that the Government had failed to enforce those judgments. Such complaints were transmitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments (the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law) for action.

43. According to the statistical information in the Court’s possession on the date of delivery of the present judgment, there are 12,143 Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court, 7,641 of which have already been communicated to the Government. The available data shows that since 3 July 2012, when the Court introduced the fast-track procedure for grouped judgments and decisions, the Court has examined and disposed of 14,430 Ivanov-type cases, in particular:

– Judgments were delivered in 3,491 cases;

– Inadmissibility decisions were given in 289 cases;

– Strike out decisions following friendly settlement were adopted in 1,103 cases;

– Strike out decisions following unilateral declarations were adopted in 1,233 cases;

– Strike out decisions for other grounds were adopted in 40 cases;

– Inadmissibility decisions were rendered by Single Judge in 8,274 cases.

44. A total of about 29,000 Ivanov-type applications have been submitted to the Court since the first application in 1999.

Since the beginning of 2016 the Court has continued to receive a large number of such applications - over 200 per month.

B. The applicants

1. Ms Lidiya Burmych

45. The applicant lives in the village of Olenychi, Ovruch District, Zhytomyr Region, Ukraine. She resides and works in an area of radioactive contamination and is entitled under the national law to various special social welfare benefits for persons who suffered from the Chernobyl disaster.

46. In 2009 she instituted proceedings in the Ovruch Local Court of Zhytomyr Region (the Ovruch Court) against the Ovruch Labour and Social Welfare Department claiming arrears in social payments under the Chernobyl Victims’ Status and Social Security Act.

47. On 24 June 2009 the Ovruch Court ruled partly in her favour. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 6 July 2009. On the same day the Ovruch Court issued a writ of execution.

48. On 10 August 2009 the State Bailiffs Service of the Zhytomyr Regional Department of Justice instituted enforcement proceedings. Despite a number of actions undertaken by the bailiffs the judgment remains unenforced.

49. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in her case. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies to speed up the enforcement of the above judgment.

2. Mr Grygoriy Yaremchuk

50. The applicant, who lives in Zhytomyr, is a former Chernobyl relief worker. Since March 2010 he has a second degree disability related to this work.

51. In October 2010 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr (the Bogunskyy Court) against the Bogunskyy District Department of the Pension Fund, seeking a higher pension.

52. On 20 June 2011 the Bogunskyy Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 1 July 2011.

53. On 27 July 2011 the enforcement proceedings were initiated.

54. The final judgment remains unenforced.

55. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the State’s failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case.

3. Mr Oleg Varava

56. The applicant, who lives in Kremenchuk, is a former Chernobyl relief worker. Since July 2009 he has a second degree disability related to this relief work.

57. On 16 August 2010 the Kryukivskyy District Court of Kremenchuk (the Kryukivskyy Court) ordered the Kryukivskyy Labour and Social Welfare Department to recalculate the amount owed in respect of his participation in the Chernobyl relief work and to pay the applicant a lump sum.

58. On 7 February 2011 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 16 August 2010. The judgment became final.

59. On 16 September 2011 the Poltava Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. This decision was challenged by the applicant.

60. By decision of 15 March 2012 the Kryukivskyy Court ruled in his favour and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to resume the enforcement proceedings. This decision was confirmed on appeal on 25 April 2012.

61. On 19 July 2012 the Poltava Bailiffs’ Service once again terminated the enforcement proceedings. On 5 October 2012 they rejected the applicant’s request to renew them.

62. On 28 February 2013, on the applicant’s complaint, the Kryukivskyy Court quashed the bailiffs’ decisions and ordered them to resume the enforcement proceedings

63. The final judgment of 16 August 2010 remains unenforced.

64. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case.

4. Mr Yuriy Neborachko

65. The applicant lives in Zhytomyr.

66. On an unknown date the applicant’s father instituted proceedings in the Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court (the Zhytomyr Court) against the Zhytomyr Labour and Social Welfare Department (the Labour Department), seeking recalculation of benefits and payment of a lump sum due to him. The applicant continued the proceedings after his father’s death on 21 November 2007.

67. On 24 January 2008 the Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court (the Zhytomyr Court) ordered the Zhytomyr Labour and Social Welfare Department (the Labour Department) to pay the applicant the outstanding debt owed to his late father. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 4 February 2008.

68. The execution writ was issued by the Zhytomyr Court on 24 April 2008 and referred to the Zhytomyr Bailiffs’ Service.

69. On several occasions the Bailiffs’ Service returned the execution writ without enforcement for lack of funds on the part of the debtor department. The judgment of 24 January 2008 remains unenforced.

70. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in his case.

5. Izolyatsiya, PAT

71. The applicant is a private joint-stock company, registered in Donetsk, Ukraine.

72. On 13 December 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (the Dnipropetrovsk Court) allowed the applicant company’s claim for restitution of precious metals against the State Enterprise “Prydniprovskyy Zavod Kolyorovykh Metaliv” (the State Enterprise). It also awarded the applicant costs and expenses. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 25 December 2007. The same day the court issued a writ of execution.

73. On 30 January 2008 the Bagliyskyy Bailiffs’ Service in Dniprodzerzhynsk started enforcement proceedings.

74. On 11 March 2008 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service.

75. On 4 April 2008, the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service established that part of the metals had been returned by the debtor to the applicant company and the other part could not be found.

76. On 6 June 2008 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine ordered the liquidation of the State Enterprise. A liquidation commission was created. On 28 July 2008 the same Ministry issued another decree concerning liquidation of the State Enterprise.

77. On 5 September 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the award for costs and expenses under the judgment of 13 December 2007.

78. Having been notified about the impossibility of finding the remainder of the metals to be restituted under the judgment of 13 December 2007, the applicant company requested the Dnipropetrovsk Court to vary the mode of execution of the judgment in that part and to award it the monetary equivalent of missing metals.

79. On 22 September 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Court amended the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of 13 December 2007 and ordered the State Enterprise to pay the applicant company compensation.

80. On 27 October 2008 and 25 February 2009, that decision was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court respectively.

81. On 9 April 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings owing to the liquidation of the debtor.

82. Following the applicant company’s complaint, on 21 September 2009 the Donetsk Circuit Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 6 June and 28 July 2008 concerning the liquidation of the State Enterprise. This decision was overruled on appeal by the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal on 23 December 2009, but ultimately upheld by the Higher Administrative Court on 6 July 2010.

83. On 10 April 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court initiated insolvency proceedings in respect of the State Enterprise on the applicant’s request. On 9 July 2013 the same court declared the State Enterprise insolvent and ordered its liquidation.

84. The judgment of 13 December 2007 as varied by the ruling of 22 September 2008 remains unenforced.

85. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complained of the national authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment delivered in its case. It further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies to speed up the enforcement of the above judgment.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. The Constitution of 26 June 1996, as amended on 2 June 2016

86. The last paragraph of Article 124 of the Constitution, in its original wording, provided that:

“... Judicial decisions are adopted by the courts in the name of Ukraine and are mandatory for execution throughout the entire territory of Ukraine.”

87. Following the amendments of 2 June 2016 this provision was repealed and replaced by a new Article 129(1) which provides as follows:

“Judicial decisions are adopted by the courts in the name of Ukraine. Judicial decisions are mandatory for execution.

The State ensures execution of the judicial decision in accordance with the procedures established by law.

The court shall control the execution of the judicial decision.”

B. The Criminal Code

88. Article 382 of the Code provides:

“1. Wilful failure to comply with a sentence, judgment, ruling or resolution of a court which has entered into force, or hindrance of its enforcement, shall be punishable by a fine [in the amount] of 500 to 1,000 of the statutory non-taxable monthly income, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.

2. The same actions committed by an official, shall be punishable by a fine [in the amount] of 750 to 1000 of the statutory non-taxable monthly income, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

3. The same actions committed by an official occupying a responsible or especially responsible position, or by a person previously convicted of the crime envisaged by this Article, or [the same actions] causing substantial damage to the legally protected rights and freedoms of citizens, State or public interests or the interests of legal entities, shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term of up to five years, or by deprivation of liberty for the same term with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

4. Wilful failure of an official to comply with a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.”

C. Act of 14 May 1992 on the restoration of a debtor’s solvency or declaration of bankruptcy, with amendments (Закон України “Про відновлення платоспроможності боржника або визнання його банкрутом”)

89. Under section 19 of this Act, a commercial court is entitled to order a moratorium on debt recovery from a company which is the subject of insolvency proceedings. The moratorium implies a prohibition to execute judgments against such a company. The Act also provides that the company protected by moratorium shall be immune from any fines and other sanctions for non-fulfilment or improper fulfilment of its financial obligations during the moratorium.

D. Enforcement Proceedings Act of 21 April 1999, in force until 2 June 2016 (Закон України “Про виконавче провадження”)

90. This Act determined the procedure for enforcement of decisions of courts and of other competent authorities and officials (“judgments”).

91. Under section 2 of the Act, the enforcement of judgments was entrusted to the State Bailiffs’ Service which formed part of the Ministry of Justice. Other entities and officials could also carry out enforcement under the domestic law.

92. The Act conferred a wide range of powers on bailiffs in enforcement proceedings. In particular, they were entitled to seek and obtain from any person concerned information and documents that were necessary for the enforcement of decisions, to enter and inspect premises belonging to, or occupied by, debtors, to seize and sell debtors’ property, to freeze debtors’ bank accounts, and to impose fines on citizens and officials in cases envisaged by the law (sections 4-5 of the Act). The bailiffs’ orders concerning the enforcement of judgments were binding on all entities, organisations, officials and ordinary citizens in the territory of Ukraine. Pursuant to sections 6 and 88 of the Act, the bailiffs were entitled to impose on persons failing to comply with their orders a fine amounting to ten to thirty times the statutory non-taxable monthly income. If the actions of the offenders fell within the ambit of the criminal law, the bailiffs were to request their prosecution.

93. Section 3 of the Act contained a list of documents on the basis of which bailiffs could proceed with forcible execution (“the enforcement documents”). It included, inter alia, writs of execution issued by courts, rulings and resolutions of courts in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal cases, judicial orders, and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to initiate enforcement proceedings, the person in whose favour the judgment had been delivered (“the creditor”) or a prosecutor who had represented a citizen or the State in the court proceedings were to submit to the bailiffs one of the documents specified in section 3 together with a request for its enforcement (section 18). The bailiffs had three days to determine whether the request was made in compliance with the law and, if so, to start the enforcement proceedings, which were normally to be completed within six months (sections 24-25).

94. Section 34 of the Act obliged the bailiffs to suspend the enforcement proceedings in specific situations. Such suspension was compulsory if, for instance, a commercial court had started insolvency proceedings against the debtor and imposed a ban on payments in respect of creditors’ claims, or if the debtor was an enterprise included on the list of fuel and energy enterprises taking part in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the Act on measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises (see paragraph 97 below).

95. Under section 37, enforcement proceedings were to be discontinued in cases where, for example, the judgment had actually been enforced in full, the time allowed for a particular type of debt collection had expired, or the enforcement document had been transferred to the debtor’s liquidator following official recognition of the debtor’s insolvency. The bailiffs were to return the enforcement document to the creditor if, for instance, the debtor did not have property which could be seized with a view to enforcing the judgment and the measures adopted by the bailiffs in order to discover such property had proved to be unsuccessful.

96. Parties to enforcement proceedings or persons involved in them were entitled to challenge the bailiffs’ actions or inactivity before their superiors or courts and to claim damages (sections 7, 85 and 86).

97. Under the transitional provisions of the Act, the application of sections 4 and 5 was suspended in respect of enterprises included on the list of fuel and energy enterprises taking part in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the Act on measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises.

E. Act of 29 November 2001 introducing a moratorium on the forced sale of property (Закон України “Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю майна”)

98. This Act is intended to protect State interests on the sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital. A moratorium on the enforcement of judgment debts was introduced until such time as the mechanism for the forced sale of the property of such undertakings had been improved. No time-limit was set.

F. Act of 23 June 2005 on measures to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy sector enterprises (Закон України Про заходи, спрямовані на забезпечення сталого функціонування підприємств паливно-енергетичного комплексу)

99. This Act introduces a mechanism for payment and amortisation of companies’ debts in respect of energy resources. It also introduced a special register of companies involved in debt payment and amortisation under its provisions. A company’s inclusion on that register has the effect of suspending any enforcement proceedings against the company and requiring the domestic courts to dismiss any request to initiate insolvency or liquidation proceedings against the company.

G. Act of 16 October 2006 on execution of judgments and application of case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

100. Section 1 provides a definition of terms used in this Act. It defines the decision of the Court as a final judgment in a case against Ukraine in which a violation was found, a final judgment on just satisfaction in a case against Ukraine, a judgment/decision on a friendly settlement in a case against Ukraine, a judgment/decision on approving a unilateral declaration in a case against Ukraine. Redress is defined as the amount of just satisfaction, established by judgment of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 41 of the Convention or an award indicated in a decision on approval of friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. Execution of a judgment/decision constitutes payment of redress and taking additional individual measures; and taking general measures. Part 5 of section 8 provides that grounds for termination of enforcement proceedings shall be confirmation of payment of the award and of execution of any other requirement indicated in the operative part of the Court’s judgment. Section 10 provides for additional (on top of payment of the redress as defined above) individual measures which include a restitutio in integrum to the maximum possible extent and other measures indicated in the judgment/decision.

H. Amendment Act of 14 June 2011 concerning the State Budget

101. This Act introduced the following changes to the State Budget Act of 2011:

“To establish that in 2011 the provisions of sections ...50, 54... of the Chernobyl Victims Act, Children of War Social Protection Act and Military Personnel Pensions Act ... are implemented in the amounts established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in accordance with available financial resources in the Pension Fund Budget for 2011.”

102. On 6 July 2011, in its decision no. 745, the Cabinet of Ministers fixed the amounts concerned. This decision was in force between 23 July 2011 and 1 January 2012. On 23 November 2011 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a further decision, no. 1210, on the same matter.

I. Act of 5 June 2012 on state guarantees concerning execution of judicial decisions, with amendments (Закон України “Про гарантії держави щодо виконання судових рішень”)

103. This Act entered in force on 1 January 2013. It imposes an obligation on State authorities (State Treasury) to enforce the judgments delivered by the national courts against State bodies and companies (section 2 of the Act).

104. Under section 3 § 4 of the Act, the decisions of domestic courts must be enforced within three months from the date on which the applicant submits all the necessary documents to the State Treasury. The Act further provides that when a decision remains unenforced for more than three months, the State is obliged to compensate the person by paying 3% per annum of the outstanding debt per year.

J. Enforcement Proceedings Act of 2 June 2016 (Закон України “Про виконавче провадження”)

105. In comparison with its previous version, the Act introduces a mixed system for enforcement by State Bailiffs and by private debt collectors. Even though private debt collectors cannot be involved in enforcement of domestic decisions where the State is the debtor, they are expected to take some of the burden off State Bailiffs, thus making it possible to reduce their overall time spent on enforcement. Furthermore, the Act envisages setting up a data processing system to exchange information on enforcement proceedings with a view to accelerating a search of the debtor’s property and monitoring the executors’ activities.

106. Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:

“1. State Bailiffs and, to the extent allowed by law, private debt collectors are authorised to enforce the decisions.

2. Private debt collectors shall perform the enforcement of the decisions ... except for:

...

2) decisions under which the debtor is a State, governmental authorities, National Bank of Ukraine, self-governing authorities, their respective officials, State and municipal companies, institutions and organisations, in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital, and/or which are financed from the State or local budget; ...”

K. Act of 2 June 2016 on authorities and persons responsible for enforcement of court decisions and decisions of other bodies (Закон України “Про органи та осіб, які здійснюють примусове виконання судових рішень і рішень інших органів”)

107. Section 1 of the Act provides as follows:

“1. State Bailiffs and, to the extent allowed by the Enforcement Proceedings Act, private debt collectors are authorised to enforce the court decisions and decisions of other bodies (officials).”

III. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS

A. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention

108. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council Europe at its 114th session held on 12 May 2004, together with accompanying recommendations and resolutions (see paragraphs 110-112 below), constitutes a central part of the overall package of reform measures taken by the Contracting States in order to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system (see also Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 190‑191, ECHR 2004‑V).

109. Paragraph 98 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14 refers to execution of the Court’s judgments in the following terms:

“Rapid and full execution of the Court’s judgments is vital. It is even more important in cases concerning structural problems, so as to ensure that the Court is not swamped with repetitive applications. For this reason, ever since the Rome ministerial conference of 3 and 4 November 2000 (Resolution I), ... it has been considered essential to strengthen the means given in this context to the Committee of Ministers. The Parties to the Convention have a collective duty to preserve the Court’s authority – and thus the Convention system’s credibility and effectiveness – whenever the Committee of Ministers considers that one of the High Contracting Parties refuses, expressly or through its conduct, to comply with the Court’s final judgment in a case to which it is party.”

B. Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the improvement of domestic remedies, 12 May 2004

110. At its 114th session on 12 May 2004 the Committee of Ministers, having considered the measures needed to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the control system instituted by the Convention, issued the following declaration:

“Recalling the subsidiary character of the supervision mechanism set up by the Convention, which implies, in accordance with its Article 1, that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention be protected in the first place at national level and applied by national authorities;

Welcoming in this context that the Convention has now become an integral part of the domestic legal order of all states parties;

Emphasising that, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, member states undertake to ensure that any individual who has an arguable complaint concerning the violation of his rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention has an effective remedy before a national authority;

Recalling that in addition to the obligation of ascertaining the existence of such effective remedies in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Court), states have the general obligation to solve the problems underlying violations found;

Emphasising that it is for member states to ensure that domestic remedies are effective in law and in practice, and that they can result in a decision on the merits of a complaint and adequate redress for any violation found;

Noting that the nature and the number of applications lodged with the Court and the judgments it delivers show that it is more than ever necessary for the member states to ascertain efficiently and regularly that such remedies do exist in all circumstances, in particular in cases of unreasonable length of judicial proceedings;

Considering that the availability of effective domestic remedies for all arguable claims of violation of the Convention should permit a reduction in the Court’s workload as a result, on the one hand, of the decreasing number of cases reaching it and, on the other hand, of the fact that the detailed treatment of the cases at national level would make their later examination by the Court easier;

Emphasising that the improvement of remedies at national level, particularly in respect of repetitive cases, should also contribute to reducing the workload of the Court;

Recommends that member states, taking into account the examples of good practice appearing in the appendix:

I. ascertain, through constant review, in the light of case-law of the Court, that domestic remedies exist for anyone with an arguable complaint of a violation of the Convention, and that these remedies are effective, in that they can result in a decision on the merits of the complaint and adequate redress for any violation found;

II. review, following Court judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice, the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and, where necessary, set up effective remedies, in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the Court;

...”

111. In the Appendix to the above Recommendation, the Committee of Ministers noted:

“...

3. The Court is confronted with an ever-increasing number of applications. This situation jeopardises the long-term effectiveness of the system and therefore calls for a strong reaction from contracting parties. It is precisely within this context that the availability of effective domestic remedies becomes particularly important. The improvement of available domestic remedies will most probably have quantitative and qualitative effects on the workload of the Court:

 on the one hand, the volume of applications to be examined ought to be reduced: fewer applicants would feel compelled to bring the case before the Court if the examination of their complaints before the domestic authorities was sufficiently thorough;

 on the other hand, the examination of applications by the Court will be facilitated if an examination of the merits of cases has been carried out beforehand by a domestic authority, thanks to the improvement of domestic remedies.

...

13. When a judgment which points to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice (‘pilot case’) has been delivered and a large number of applications to the Court concerning the same problem (‘repetitive cases’) are pending or likely to be lodged, the respondent state should ensure that potential applicants have, where appropriate, an effective remedy allowing them to apply to a competent national authority, which may also apply to current applicants. Such a rapid and effective remedy would enable them to obtain redress at national level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity of the Convention system.

14. The introduction of such a domestic remedy could also significantly reduce the Court’s workload. While prompt execution of the pilot judgment remains essential for solving the structural problem and thus for preventing future applications on the same matter, there may exist a category of people who have already been affected by this problem prior to its resolution.

...

16. In particular, further to a pilot judgment in which a specific structural problem has been found, one alternative might be to adopt an ad hoc approach, whereby the state concerned would assess the appropriateness of introducing a specific remedy or widening an existing remedy by legislation or by judicial interpretation.

...

18. When specific remedies are set up following a pilot case, governments should speedily inform the Court so that it can take them into account in its treatment of subsequent repetitive cases.

...”

C. Resolution Res(2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem, 12 May 2004

112. At the same session of 12 May 2004 the Committee of Ministers adopted a resolution, stating as follows:

“...

Recalling the subsidiary character of the supervision mechanism set up by the Convention, which implies, in accordance with its Article 1, that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention be protected in the first place at national level and applied by national authorities;

...

Recalling that, according to Article 46 of the Convention, the high contracting parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) in any case to which they are parties and that the final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution;

Emphasising the interest in helping the State concerned to identify the underlying problems and the necessary execution measures;

Considering that the execution of judgments would be facilitated if the existence of a systemic problem is already identified in the judgment of the Court;

...

Invites the Court:

I. as far as possible, to identify, in its judgments finding a violation of the Convention, what it considers to be an underlying systemic problem and the source of this problem, in particular when it is likely to give rise to numerous applications, so as to assist States in finding the appropriate solution and the Committee of Ministers in supervising the execution of judgments;

II. to specially notify any judgment containing indications of the existence of a systemic problem and of the source of this problem not only to the State concerned and to the Committee of Ministers, but also to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and to highlight such judgments in an appropriate manner in the database of the Court.

...”

D. The Committee of Ministers’ procedures for supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments

113. The exercise of the powers of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 §§ 2-5 of the Convention is governed by its Rules for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements (“the CM Rules”), adopted on 10 May 2006 at the 964th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

114. In accordance with the CM Rules, cases remain under the Committee of Ministers’ supervision until individual and general measures required by the Court’s judgment have been taken. After having established that the High Contracting Party concerned has taken all the necessary measures to abide by the Court’s judgment the Committee of Ministers adopts a final Resolution, concluding that its functions under Article 46 § 2 have been exercised (Rule 17). In the course of its supervision of the execution of judgment, the Committee of Ministers may adopt interim resolutions, notably in order to provide information on the state of progress of the execution or, where appropriate, to express concern and/or to make suggestions with respect to the execution (Rule 16).

115. Rule 6 of the CM Rules reads as follows:

“1. When, in a judgment transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Court has decided that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols and/or has awarded just satisfaction to the injured party under Article 41 of the Convention, the Committee shall invite the High Contracting Party concerned to inform it of the measures which the High Contracting Party has taken or intends to take in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation to abide by it under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

2. When supervising the execution of a judgment by the High Contracting Party concerned, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers shall examine:

a. whether any just satisfaction awarded by the Court has been paid, including as the case may be, default interest; and

b. if required, and taking into account the discretion of the High Contracting Party concerned to choose the means necessary to comply with the judgment, whether:

i. individual measures have been taken to ensure that the violation has ceased and that the injured party is put, as far as possible, in the same situation as that party enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention;

ii. general measures have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.”

116. The Committee of Ministers gives priority to supervision of the execution of judgments in which the Court has identified what it considers a systemic problem in accordance with Resolution Res(2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem (see paragraph 112 above).

117. Rule 4 of the CM Rules reads as follows:

“1. The Committee of Ministers shall give priority to supervision of the execution of judgments in which the Court has identified what it considers a systemic problem in accordance with Resolution Res(2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem.

2. The priority given to cases under the first paragraph of this Rule shall not be to the detriment of the priority to be given to other important cases, notably cases where the violation established has caused grave consequences for the injured party.”

118. A new “twin-track” procedure was introduced in January 2011. In particular, it establishes supervision system with two procedures: a standard and simplified procedure as the norm, and an enhanced procedure for certain cases. The indicators for the classification of cases under the enhanced supervision procedure are the following:

– judgments requiring urgent individual measures;

– pilot judgments;

– judgments disclosing major structural and/or complex problems as identified by the Court and/or the CM;

– inter-State cases.

E. Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton and Brussels High-Level Conferences on the Future of the Court

119. In view of the increasing number of applications submitted to the Court and the growing backlog of cases, the Contracting States held four high-level conferences to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the human rights protection system under the Convention and to provide the Court with the tools that it needed to carry out its mission. Following each conference, the States parties to the Convention issued a declaration which, in so far as relevant, read as set out below.

1. The Interlaken Conference and Declaration

120. At the High-Level Conference held in Interlaken, in Switzerland, on 18 and 19 February 2010, the Contracting States declared:

“...

6. Stressing the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention and notably the fundamental role which national authorities, i.e. governments, courts and parliaments, must play in guaranteeing and protecting human rights at the national level;

7. Noting with deep concern that the number of applications brought before the Court and the deficit between applications introduced and applications disposed of continues to grow;

8. Considering that this situation causes damage to the effectiveness and credibility of the Convention and its supervisory mechanism and represents a threat to the quality and the consistency of the case-law and the authority of the Court;

...

The Conference

...

(2) Reiterates the obligation of the States Parties to ensure that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention are fully secured at the national level and calls for a strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity;

(3) Stresses that this principle implied a shared responsibility between the States Parties and the Court;

...

(7) Stresses that full, effective and rapid execution of the final judgments of the Court is indispensable;

...”

Under the Action Plan (point 4. b)), the Conference called upon the States Parties to commit themselves to:

“... fully executing the Court’s judgments, ensuring that the necessary measures are taken to prevent further similar violations;

...”

2. The Izmir Conference and Declaration

121. At the High-Level Conference held in Izmir, in Turkey, on 26 and 27 April 2011, the Contracting States declared as follows:

“1. Recalling the strong commitment of the States Parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and to the control mechanism it established;

2. Expressing its determination to ensure the effectiveness of this mechanism in the short, medium and long terms;

...

5. Recalling that the subsidiary character of the Convention mechanism constitutes a fundamental and transversal principle which both the Court and the States Parties must take into account;

6. Recalling also the shared responsibility of both the Court and the States Parties in guaranteeing the viability of the Convention mechanism;

7. Noting with concern the continuing increase in the number of applications brought before the Court;

...

B. Implementation of the Convention at national level

The Conference:

1. Reiterates calls made in this respect in the Interlaken Declaration and more particularly invites the States Parties to:

a. Ensure that effective domestic remedies exist, be they of a specific nature or a general domestic remedy, providing for a decision on an alleged violation of the Convention and, where necessary, its redress;

b. Co-operate fully with the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the new methods of supervision of execution of judgments of the Court;

...”

3. The Brighton Conference and Declaration

122. At the High-Level Conference held on 19 and 20 April 2012 in Brighton, United Kingdom, the Contracting States declared as follows:

“1. The States Parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’) reaffirm their deep and abiding commitment to the Convention, and to the fulfilment of their obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention.

...

3. The States Parties and the Court share responsibility for realising the effective implementation of the Convention, underpinned by the fundamental principle of subsidiarity. The Convention was concluded on the basis, inter alia, of the sovereign equality of States. States Parties must respect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, and must effectively resolve violations at the national level. The Court acts as a safeguard for violations that have not been remedied at the national level. Where the Court finds a violation, States Parties must abide by the final judgment of the Court.

4. The States Parties and the Court also share responsibility for ensuring the viability of the Convention mechanism. The States Parties are determined to work in partnership with the Court to achieve this, drawing also on the important work of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as well as the Commissioner for Human Rights and the other institutions and bodies of the Council of Europe, and working in a spirit of co-operation with civil society and National Human Rights Institutions.

...

A. Implementation of the Convention at national level

7. The full implementation of the Convention at national level requires States Parties to take effective measures to prevent violations. All laws and policies should be formulated, and all State officials should discharge their responsibilities, in a way that gives full effect to the Convention. States Parties must also provide means by which remedies may be sought for alleged violations of the Convention. National courts and tribunals should take into account the Convention and the case law of the Court. Collectively, these measures should reduce the number of violations of the Convention. They would also reduce the number of well-founded applications presented to the Court, thereby helping to ease its workload.

8. The Council of Europe plays a crucial role in assisting and encouraging national implementation of the Convention, as part of its wider work in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The provision of technical assistance upon request to States Parties, whether provided by the Council of Europe or bilaterally by other States Parties, disseminates good practice and raises the standards of human rights observance in Europe. The support given by the Council of Europe should be provided in an efficient manner with reference to defined outcomes, in co-ordination with the wider work of the organisation.

9. The Conference therefore:

a) Affirms the strong commitment of the States Parties to fulfil their primary responsibility to implement the Convention at national level;

b) Strongly encourages the States Parties to continue to take full account of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on the implementation of the Convention at national level in their development of legislation, policies and practices to give effect to the Convention;

...

B. Interaction between the Court and national authorities

10. The States Parties to the Convention are obliged to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, and to provide an effective remedy before a national authority for everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated. The Court authoritatively interprets the Convention. It also acts as a safeguard for individuals whose rights and freedoms are not secured at the national level.

...

D. Processing of applications

16. The number of applications made each year to the Court has doubled since 2004. Very large numbers of applications are now pending before all of the Court’s primary judicial formations. Many applicants, including those with a potentially well‑founded application, have to wait for years for a response.

...

18. Repetitive applications mostly arise from systemic or structural issues at the national level. It is the responsibility of a State Party, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to ensure that such issues and resulting violations are resolved as part of the effective execution of judgments of the Court.

19. The increasing number of cases pending before the Chambers of the Court is also a matter of serious concern. The Court should be able to focus its attention on potentially well-founded new violations.

20. The Conference therefore:

a) Welcomes the advances already made by the Court in its processing of applications, particularly the adoption of:

i. Its priority policy, which has helped it focus on the most important and serious cases; and

ii. Working methods that streamline procedures particularly for the handling of inadmissible and repetitive cases, while maintaining appropriate judicial responsibility;

...

c) Expresses continued concern about the large number of repetitive applications pending before the Court; welcomes the continued use by the Court of proactive measures, particularly pilot judgments, to dispose of repetitive violations in an efficient manner; and encourages the States Parties, the Committee of Ministers and the Court to work together to find ways to resolve the large numbers of applications arising from systemic issues identified by the Court, considering the various ideas that have been put forward, including their legal, practical and financial implications, and taking into account the principle of equal treatment of all States Parties;

d) Building on the pilot judgment procedure, invites the Committee of Ministers to consider the advisability and modalities of a procedure by which the Court could register and determine a small number of representative applications from a group of applications that allege the same violation against the same respondent State Party, such determination being applicable to the whole group;

...

F. Execution of judgments of the Court

26. Each State Party has undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are a party. Through its supervision, the Committee of Ministers ensures that proper effect is given to the judgments of the Court, including by the implementation of general measures to resolve wider systemic issues.

27. The Committee of Ministers must therefore effectively and fairly consider whether the measures taken by a State Party have resolved a violation. The Committee of Ministers should be able to take effective measures in respect of a State Party that fails to comply with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention. The Committee of Ministers should pay particular attention to violations disclosing a systemic issue at national level, and should ensure that States Parties quickly and effectively implement pilot judgments.

...

G. Longer-term future of the Convention system and the Court

...

32. Effective implementation of the Convention at national level will permit the Court in the longer term to take on a more focused and targeted role. The Convention system must support States in fulfilling their primary responsibility to implement the Convention at national level.

33. In response to more effective implementation at the national level, the Court should be in a position to focus its efforts on serious or widespread violations, systemic and structural problems, and important questions of interpretation and application of the Convention, and hence would need to remedy fewer violations itself and consequently deliver fewer judgments.”

4. The Brussels Conference and Declaration

123. The relevant sections of the Declaration adopted by the Contracting States at the end of the High-Level Conference in Brussels, Belgium, on 26 and 27 March 2015 read as follows:

“Reaffirms the deep and abiding commitment of the States Parties to the Convention ... and their strong attachment to the right of individual application to the European Court ... as a cornerstone of the system for protecting the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention;

...

Reiterates the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention and in particular the primary role played by national authorities, namely governments, courts and parliaments, and their margin of appreciation in guaranteeing and protecting human rights at national level, while involving National Human Rights Institutions and civil society where appropriate;

...

Underlines the importance of Article 46 of the Convention on the binding force of the Court’s judgments, which stipulates that the States Parties undertake to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties;

...

Whilst noting the progress achieved by States Parties with regard to the execution of judgments, emphasises the importance of the full, effective and prompt execution of judgments and of a strong political commitment by the States Parties in this respect, thus strengthening the credibility of the Court and the Convention system in general;

Is convinced that further to the improvements already carried out, emphasis must now be placed on the current challenges, in particular the repetitive applications resulting from the non-execution of Court judgments, the time taken by the Court to consider and decide upon potentially well-founded cases, the growing number of judgments under supervision by the Committee of Ministers and the difficulties of States Parties in executing certain judgments due to the scale, nature or cost of the problems raised. To this end, additional measures are necessary in order to:

i. continue to enable the Court to reduce the backlog of well‑founded and repetitive cases and to rule on potentially well-founded new cases, particularly those concerning serious violations of human rights, within a reasonable time;

ii. ensure the full, effective and prompt execution of the judgments of the Court;

iii. guarantee full and effective supervision of execution of all judgments by the Committee of Ministers and develop, in co-operation with States Parties, bilateral dialogue and assistance by the Council of Europe in the execution process.

The Conference therefore:

(1) Reaffirms the strong attachment of the States Parties to the Convention to the right of individual application;

(2) Reiterates the firm determination of the States Parties to fulfil their primary obligation to ensure that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and its protocols are fully secured at national level, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

(3) Invites each stakeholder to ensure that the necessary means are available to fulfil its role in the implementation of the Convention, in conformity with the Convention providing for shared responsibility between the States Parties, the Court and the Committee of Ministers;

...

(8) Stresses the need to find, both at the level of the Court and in the framework of the execution of judgments, effective solutions for dealing with repetitive cases;

(9) Encourages in this regard States Parties to give priority to alternative procedures to litigation such as friendly settlements and unilateral declarations;

(10) Recalling Article 46 of the Convention, stresses that full, effective and prompt execution by the States Parties of final judgments of the Court is essential;

(11) Reiterates the importance of the Committee of Ministers respecting the States Parties’ freedom to choose the means of full and effective execution of the Court’s judgments;

(12) Calls for enhancing, at the level of both the Committee of Ministers and the States Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the effectiveness of the system of supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgments;

...”

F. The Committee of Ministers’ assessment of the execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment

124. On 6 March 2008 the Committee of Ministers considered, pursuant to Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the measures adopted by the Government of Ukraine with a view to complying with the Court’s judgments concerning the issue of the prolonged non-enforcement of final domestic decisions. The Committee adopted an interim resolution (CM/ResDH(2008)1), the relevant provisions of which read as follows:

“The Committee of Ministers ...

EXPRESSES PARTICULAR CONCERN that notwithstanding a number of legislative and other important initiatives, which have been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Committee of Ministers, little progress has been made so far in resolving the structural problem of non-execution of domestic judicial decisions;

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Ukrainian authorities to enhance their political commitment in order to achieve tangible results and to make it a high political priority to abide by their obligations under the Convention and by the Court’s judgments, to ensure full and timely execution of the domestic courts’ decision;

CALLS UPON the Ukrainian authorities to set up an effective national policy, coordinated at the highest governmental level, with a view to effectively implementing the package of measures announced and other measures which may be necessary to tackle the problem at issue;

URGES the Ukrainian authorities to adopt as a matter of priority the draft laws that were announced before the Committee of Ministers, in particular the law On Amendments to Certain Legal Acts of Ukraine (on the protection of the right to pre‑trial and trial proceedings and enforcement of court decisions within reasonable time);

ENCOURAGES the authorities, pending the adoption of the draft laws announced, to consider the adoption of interim measures limiting as far as possible the risk of new violations of the Convention of the same kind, and in particular:

‑ to consider the adoption of measures similar to those taken in the education sector in other sectors which raise similar problems;

‑ to take measures to ensure effective management and control over state entities and enterprises to avoid debts arising to employees;

‑ to ensure in practice the effective liability of civil servants for non-enforcement;

‑ to award compensation for delays in enforcement of domestic judicial decisions directly on the basis of the Convention’s provisions and the Court’s case-law as provided by the Law on enforcement of judgments and the application of the case-law of the European Court;

INVITES the Ukrainian authorities to consider, in addition to the measures announced, appropriate solutions in the following areas:

‑ to improve budgetary planning, particularly by ensuring compatibility between the budgetary laws and the state’s payment obligations;

‑ to ensure the existence of specific mechanisms for rapid additional funding to avoid unnecessary delays in the execution of judicial decisions in case of shortfalls in the initial budgetary appropriations; and

‑ to ensure the existence of an effective procedure and funds for the execution of domestic courts’ judgements delivered against the state.

...”

125. At its 1236th meeting on 22-24 September 2015, the Committee of Ministers examined the status of execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment and affirmed the following:

“General measures33: (a) Measures related to the introduction of a domestic remedy: Since the pilot judgment, the Committee has mainly concentrated on the issue of setting up domestic remedies: the law ‘On State guarantees concerning enforcement of judicial decisions’ was adopted by Parliament on 5 June 2012 and entered into force on 1 January 2013. It introduced a new specific procedure for the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered against the State after its entry into force. On 19 September 2013, Parliament adopted amendments to this law, enlarging its applicability to ‘old’ judicial decisions (in force since 16 October 2013) (the ‘remedy law’). Under the remedy law the State shall guarantee the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions rendered against the State, a State entity or a company the property of which cannot be alienated according to the legislation in force. This guarantee entails, in particular, an automatic payment from the State treasury in case of default of the entity concerned. The guarantee shall be limited by the funds provided in the law on budget for each year (regarding both ‘old’ judicial decisions rendered before the date of entry into force of the remedy law – 1 January 2013 – and the new decisions rendered after this date).

At the last examination of the present group in June 2015, the Committee recalled that the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions persisted in Ukraine for more than a decade, notwithstanding the guidance given by the Committee over the years, notably through its five interim resolutions[1], and the Court’s pilot judgment, while noting in this context that the Court continues to communicate repetitive applications to the Government. The Committee noted with concern that the remedy introduced in 2013 appears not to have solved the problem at issue. It further noted the information provided with respect to an envisaged alternative payment scheme (see below) and expressed its concern that this scheme, if not carefully designed, could run contrary to the authorities’ efforts to introduce an effective remedy for the present cases. The Committee requested further information on the details of the scheme. Lastly, the Committee stressed that the envisaged scheme could not, in any case, be applied to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, which should be done exclusively according to the terms set by the Court.

In response, in their most recent communication of 9 July 2015[2] (DH‑DD(2015)763), the Ukrainian authorities reiterated that the remedy law is ‘one of the ways to guarantee the enforcement of national courts’ judgments’. They admitted, however, that the amounts allocated for this purpose are not sufficient to cover all the debt immediately. The authorities provided detailed figures of the amounts allocated in the State budget and actually paid under the remedy law.

In its communication of 26 May 2015 (DH-DD(2015)595), the NGO ‘Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU)’ pointed out that the amount allocated in 2015 in the State budget for the purpose of repaying the debts under both the remedy law and the just satisfaction awarded by the Court – UAH 150,000,000 – represented only 1% of the total debt. It further contended that the real amount of the debt was much higher than the one indicated by the authorities.

(b) Alternative mechanism of enforcement of judicial decisions: It is recalled that in their action plan of April 2015 (see DH-DD(2015)419), the Ukrainian authorities indicated that a new alternative mechanism of enforcement of judicial decisions was being developed. The essence of this mechanism consists in the transformation of debts under non-enforced judicial decisions, the enforcement of which is guaranteed by the State and the European Court’s judgments, accrued as of 1 January 2015 (totalling up to 7,544,562,370 UAH) into treasury bonds payable up to seven years. It is envisaged that only a small part of the debt would be paid in cash (up to 10%), within the limit of the funds provided to this end by the Law ‘On the 2015 State Budget’. A first evaluation of this mechanism is provided above under (a).

In their most updated action plan of 9 July 2015 (DH-DD(2015)763), the Ukrainian authorities did not provide more detailed information with respect to the envisaged scheme, indicating only that ‘the work in this respect was ongoing’.

In its communication of 26 May 2015 (DH-DD(2015)595), the NGO ‘Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU)’ indicated that, in its opinion, this mechanism ‘has serious gaps’. In particular, it pointed out that the anticipated 3% interest rate was too low, not covering even the rate of annual inflation. In addition, it indicated that the seven-year period for payment under the bonds was too long.

In his communication to the Committee of Ministers of 10 June 2015 (DD(2015)608) concerning repetitive cases, the Registrar of the European Court indicated that ‘Ukraine represents the most serious problem with some 9,000 applications concerning one single problem namely non-enforcement of domestic judgments’. The Registrar noted that a pilot judgment procedure ‘has failed to produce the results expected at national level with the result that the Court has to deal with the remaining cases individually.

...

1236th meeting - Notes:

Individual measures: It is noted that the Ukrainian authorities provided certain information relating to the payment of just satisfaction, accrued default interest and the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions in several cases of the present group. However, this information has not been systematised and, consequently, it is not possible to determine what progress has been achieved as regards the payment of just satisfaction ordered by the European Court or the number of domestic judgments enforced. Given the particularly large number of judgments concerned, the Secretariat offered its assistance to the Ukrainian authorities so as to enable them to organise an inventory of all outstanding debts relating to individual measures, including the amount of debt under the unenforced domestic judicial decisions.

General measures: The communication of 9 July 2015 does not provide any new relevant information in response to the concerns expressed by the Committee of Ministers on the remedy and the envisaged debt restructuring scheme.

It is noted that the remedy law has failed to solve the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions. The main immediate impediment to its effective implementation is the lack of sufficient budgetary allocations. This situation is a matter of grave concern, which requires resolute action from the Ukrainian authorities.

As regards the ‘alternative bond payment scheme’, the Ukrainian authorities have not provided any information in response to the concerns expressed during the last meeting of June 2015, in particular that the envisaged scheme could not be applied to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, which should be done exclusively according to the terms and during the time-limits set. The Ukrainian authorities are expected to confirm that this is not so and also to provide further information on the developments concerning the alternative payment scheme, in particular its relation to the remedy scheme of 2013.

At this juncture, it appears of the utmost importance that the Ukrainian authorities draw up a roadmap showing how to tackle this long-standing problem. At the outset, it is necessary to ensure a complete inventory of the actual debt incurred thus far, including default interest where applicable.

Lastly, it is noted that, given the particular complexity of the problem at issue, the Ukrainian authorities might wish to explore all possibilities of assistance from the Council of Europe in order to design a meaningful strategy to solve it. ...”

_________________________

33. See the Notes for the last DH meeting of June 2015 for full details about the measures taken together with the analysis thereof.

126. At its 1259th meeting on 7-9 June 2016, the Committee of Ministers examined the state of execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment and stated the following:

“... Status of execution

Individual measures: During its last examination of the present group of cases in September 2015 (1236th meeting) (DH), the Committee invited the Ukrainian authorities to systemise the information provided with respect to the payment of just satisfaction together with a calculation of the still outstanding debt.

The Ukrainian authorities have not provided any information in response to the Committee’s above decision.

General measures:

As the Committee has stressed on many occasions, the problem of non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions has persisted in Ukraine for more than a decade, notwithstanding the guidance given by the Committee over the years, notably through its five interim resolutions, and the Court’s pilot judgment. The Committee of Ministers has underlined in particular that non-enforcement of domestic court decisions represents an important danger, not least for the respect of the Rule of Law, frustrates citizens’ confidence in the judicial system and questions the credibility of the State.

Despite several attempts made by the Ukrainian authorities, in particular the introduction of a remedy in 2013, the measures taken so far have not been successful in solving the problem. Consequently, the influx of applications lodged with the Court has continued to grow. Most recently, the Chamber of the Court to which similar cases had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber on 8 December 2015 and the cases are currently pending before the Grand Chamber.

On 8 April 2016, the Special Advisor of the Secretary General on Ukraine, Mr Christos Giakoumopoulos, addressed a letter to Minister of Justice of Ukraine, Mr Pavlo Petrenko, in which he conveyed the Committee of Ministers’ concerns on account of the lack of progress in taking the necessary measures for the execution of these cases and proposed to organise a consultation meeting with the relevant authorities as well as with other interested international organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank with a view to identifying avenues to solve this problem (DH-DD(2016)575). The Ukrainian authorities responded positively to this request. Consequently, a meeting took place on 12 May 2016 in Kyiv with the participation of the Vice-Ministers of Justice, Finance and Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the Permanent Representative of Ukraine before the Council of Europe, the representatives of the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court and of the International Monetary Fund.

During the consultations, the Ukrainian authorities provided the following information:

As regards the cases pending before the European Court, the Ukrainian authorities indicated that they were in the process of taking steps to settle around 10,000 Ivanov‑type of cases. For this purpose, they were calculating the amount of debt arising out of the domestic unenforced judicial decisions in these cases. On the basis of this work, they intend to propose friendly settlements or unilateral declarations to the European Court for the totality of the pending cases.

As regards the domestic remedy (see the Notes for the 1230th and 1236th DH meeting), the authorities acknowledged that the legislation which introduced a domestic remedy in 2013 was only partially effective. At present, there were some 120,000 holders of unenforced judicial decisions waiting to receive compensation under the remedy law. The estimated amount of debt relating to the entirety of these decisions is around UAH 2.5 billion (around EUR 89 million according to the current exchange rate).

As regards the alternative bond payment scheme (the Notes for the 1230th and 1236th DH meeting), the authorities indicated that this scheme was not yet applicable. So far, no holders of unenforced judicial decisions applied to receive bonds. It is recalled that the total amount of debt associated with the judicial decisions that were supposed to be converted into bonds was around UAH 7.5 billion (around EUR 267 million according to the current exchange rate).

As regards the inventory of all existing debts, the authorities indicated that the inventory started in 2013 and has not yet been completed. They indicated that there was no unified register of judicial decisions in Ukraine, and, therefore, the exact number of such decisions was unknown.

The authorities also indicated that the amount of debt arising out of unenforced decisions is difficult to calculate since not all unenforced judicial decisions have been inventoried. In addition, certain judicial decisions concerning social rights provided for the recalculation of various allocations to be conducted by relevant State services.

The authorities reiterated that the root cause of the problem in these cases was the lack of sufficient budgetary funding for all social rights existing in Ukraine. This situation resulted from the lack of any serious impact evaluation relating to various social rights and privileges granted in Ukraine in the past.

Analysis by the Secretariat

It appeared from the above-mentioned consultations that the problem of non‑enforcement of domestic court decisions has reached a point warranting resolute measures. This problem can be viewed from two angles which are interconnected:

As regards the cases pending before the European Court, the settlement of all pending cases through friendly settlements or unilateral declarations would be an adequate response from the Ukrainian authorities. Such a settlement also flows from the obligation of Ukraine under the judgment of the European Court in the case of Ivanov. This solution would not only discharge the European Court from an important number of repetitive cases, but also would provide redress to those applicants who lodged applications before the European Court. The Ukrainian authorities are therefore expected to complete the work that they initiated for the settlement of the pending cases.

However, it should be noted that the settlement of cases pending before the Court would not provide a long-lasting solution to the problem because the European Court would still risk receiving new applications if the root cause of the problem is not addressed.

As regards the viable long-lasting solution to the problem, it emerged from the consultations that the domestic remedy introduced in 2013 cannot be considered to constitute an effective remedy because no adequate funding was made available for its implementation.

The alternative bond scheme elaborated last year does not appear capable of solving the problem either, since there is no sign that the authorities are currently issuing bonds for the enforcement of decisions. In any event, the conditions and the implementation of this bond scheme has not been clearly set out to the Committee of Ministers despite its invitation to Ukraine, made at 1230th and 1236th DH meetings (see the decisions adopted at these meetings).

As admitted by the Ukrainian authorities, lack of funds is the main reason why the measures adopted so far have remained futile. The Ukrainian authorities have so far not provided any information on the amount of debt that the Ukrainian State owes to the holders of domestic court decisions. The only rough estimation provided so far concerns the calculation made on the basis of the applications made within the framework of the remedy law and the possible application of the bond payment scheme (UAH 10 billion - around EUR 356 million according to the current exchange rate - including UAH 2.5 billion relating to the remedy law and UAH 7.5 billion relating to the bond scheme).

In these circumstances, the first step that needs to be taken is to calculate the amount of debt arising out of unenforced decisions in Ukraine. The second step would be to introduce a payment scheme under certain conditions or containing alternative solutions to ensure that unenforced decisions are enforced. The third step would be to make the necessary adjustments in the State budget so that sufficient funds are made available for the effective functioning of the above-mentioned payment scheme, as well as the introduction of necessary procedures to ensure that budgetary constraints are duly considered when passing legislation so as to prevent situations of non‑enforcement of domestic court decisions rendered against the State or State enterprises.”

127. At its 1265th meeting on 20-21 September 2016, the Committee of Ministers stated the following in respect of the state of execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment:

“... It was noted during the Committee’s last examination of these cases in June 2016 that it appeared from the above-mentioned consultations that the problem of non-enforcement of domestic court decisions has reached a point warranting resolute measures. It was also noted that the measures proposed by the Ukrainian authorities to settle all pending cases before the European Court through friendly settlements or unilateral declarations would be an adequate response flowing from the obligation of Ukraine under the Ivanov pilot judgment. However, the settlement of cases would not provide a long-lasting solution to the problem because the European Court would still risk receiving new applications if the root cause of the problem is not addressed. On the basis of these considerations a three-step strategy was proposed to the Ukrainian authorities with the aim of finding a viable long term solution.

It is noted with profound regret that, despite clear indications given by the Committee at its June 2016 meeting, the Ukrainian authorities have not so far reacted to these indications. This is a matter of deep concern because this situation creates an important risk for the Convention system. It should be noted in this respect that the number of similar pending applications before the Court has now exceeded 10,000 and is increasing rapidly. It is therefore indispensable that the Ukrainian authorities react to the decision adopted by the Committee at its last DH meeting and take strong action without any further delay.

...

Decisions:

The Deputies

1. recalled that the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions has persisted in Ukraine for more than a decade and that no tangible progress has been achieved so far;

2. expressed their profound regret that no action has been taken by the Ukrainian authorities in response to their decision adopted at the June 2016 DH meeting, in particular with a view to settling the pending similar applications before the European Court and adopting the three-step strategy aimed at finding a long-lasting solution to the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions;

3. stressed that, in view of the increasing number of new applications brought before the European Court, the continuing inaction of the Ukrainian authorities would put an additional undue burden on the Convention system;

4. therefore, called upon the Ukrainian authorities to take resolute action without further delay;

5. decided to resume consideration of this group of cases at their DH meeting in March 2017 at the latest. ...”

128. At its 1288th meeting on 7 June 2017 the Committee of Ministers adopted a new Interim Resolution in respect of the Ivanov-type group of cases and declared the following:

“Having regard to the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) of 15 October 2009 in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov against Ukraine and 418 cases in the Zhovner group transmitted to the Committee for supervision of their execution under Article 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the problems revealed by the present cases, notably the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judicial decisions and the lack of an effective remedy in respect thereof, have been pending before the Committee since 2004;

Recalling further that for more than a decade the Committee has, in five interim resolutions and numerous decisions, called upon the authorities to adopt, as a matter of priority, the necessary measures in its domestic legal system and to take resolute action without further delay including to implement the following three-step strategy:

‑ calculation of the amount of debt arising from unenforced decisions;

‑ introduction of a payment scheme with certain conditions, or containing alternative solutions, to ensure the enforcement of still unenforced decisions;

- introduction of the necessary adjustments in the state budget so that sufficient funds are made available for the effective functioning of the above-mentioned payment scheme, as well as necessary procedures to ensure that budgetary constraints are duly considered when passing legislation to prevent situations of non-enforcement of domestic court decisions rendered against the State or state enterprises;

Recalling the constant position of the Committee, that the problems at the root of the violations found by the Court in these judgments are large-scale and complex in nature and that their resolution requires the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures at both central and local level;

Noting that some steps have been taken to initiate reflection on the implementation of the three-step strategy but that no concrete progress in this respect has so far been reported;

Noting further the lack of progress as regards a unified approach or global strategy for reaching settlements in the cases already pending before the European Court and preventing an influx of new applications being lodged before it;

RECALLING again that the dysfunction of the justice system, as a consequence of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments, represents an important danger for the respect of the rule of law, undermines people’s confidence in the judicial system and puts into question the credibility of the State;

NOTED that, in view of the increasing number of applications brought before the European Court, the lack of progress puts an additional undue burden on the Convention system;

EXPRESSED profound concern about the lack of concrete progress in the implementation of the pilot judgment after so many years;

CALLED UPON the authorities to provide comprehensive information relating to the payment of just satisfaction and, where applicable, the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, and a clear time-frame for the submission of complete and up‑to‑date information in respect of individual measures;

STRONGLY URGED the authorities, at the highest political level, to hold to their commitment to resolve the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and to adopt, as a matter of priority, the general measures required fully to comply with the pilot judgment and aimed at finding a long-lasting solution to the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions;

INVITED the authorities fully to co-operate with the Committee and the Secretariat with a view to achieving tangible progress in the implementation of the three-step strategy on the basis of a clear and realistic timetable and to establish a long-term viable solution for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final judicial decisions;

DECIDED to resume consideration of this group of cases at their 1302nd meeting (December 2017) (DH).”

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

129. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, and having regard to the fact that the present applications originated in the same systemic violation of the Convention as found in the Ivanov judgment (see paragraphs 11-15 above), the Court decides to join the applications.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

130. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. The first and fifth applicants also complained of the lack of effective remedy in domestic law in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, these provisions read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

...”

A. The parties’ observations

1. The Government

131. The Government submitted that the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judgments, as identified by the Court’s pilot judgment in Ivanov, continued to exist owing to the size of the debt accumulated during previous years and the limited funding allocated for the purposes of full enforcement of outstanding judgments. In this connection, they acknowledged that it was not the Court’s task to review the numerous applications lodged against Ukraine comprising complaints about the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions. These applications did not raise any legal issues under the Convention and fell within the well-established case-law of the Court. It was therefore for the Government to resolve this problem and to provide an appropriate remedy at national level to address all similar complaints.

132. The Government maintained that the significant amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in non-enforcement cases, which often exceeded the amounts claimed by the applicants under the domestic judgments, could instead be allocated for the actual enforcement of the debt. Referring to the data published by the Main Department of Statistics in Kyiv, the Government pointed out that the average monthly retirement pension was around EUR 72 in 2015. Accordingly, even an amount of EUR 1,000 for just satisfaction in the Ivanov-type of non-enforcement cases would be excessive in view of the change in the currency exchange rate over the last two years.

133. As regards the general measures for execution of the Ivanov judgment, the Government averred that the national authorities were endeavouring to carry out various reforms to the system of execution of judicial decisions. The following measures have been taken with a view to implementing their obligations under the pilot judgment:

a) in 2015 two draft laws, one “on authorities and their agents which enforce judgments and decisions”, and the other “on enforcement proceedings”, were submitted to the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) for consideration. These draft laws were based on the international standards in the relevant field and introduced a mixed system for the enforcement of domestic judgments by both State bailiffs and private enforcers. The aforementioned legislative amendments will alleviate the burden on State bailiffs by decreasing the volume of their tasks and reducing the time spent on the enforcement of domestic judgments. The draft laws envisage an effective system of electronic interaction between State authorities in order to expedite searches of the debtor’s property, as well as an effective system of control over the bailiffs’ activities;

b) elaboration of regulatory legal acts on the implementation of the above draft laws (subordinate legislation);

c) work on creating a system of education and advanced training of State bailiffs and private enforcers in cooperation with the experts of the EU Project “Support to Justice Sector Reforms in Ukraine” and with the national experts in the relevant field.

134. The Government submitted that, until the full implementation of the aforementioned reforms and in order to alleviate the burden of the Court, they were willing to suggest alternative procedures to afford an adequate and sufficient redress for persons who found themselves in a situation similar to the one in the Ivanov group of cases. In this respect, the Government would be holding high-level meetings with various Ministries, the Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and other international institutions.

135. The Government concluded that they were well aware of the Court’s possible frustration caused by the absence of clear and coherent solutions to the problem in question. They therefore assured the Court of their commitment to resolving the situation at issue and to ensuring their compliance with the obligations arising from the Convention and Ukraine’s membership of the Council of Europe.

2. The applicants

136. The applicants complained of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. They alleged a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The first and fifth applicants raised a further complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as regards the lack of effective remedy in domestic law. The applicants all claimed that there were no grounds for distinguishing their cases from the Court’s findings in its Ivanov judgment. On the contrary, the circumstances of their cases demonstrated that the national dysfunction identified in the Ivanov judgment persisted to date.

137. The applicants contended that the Court’s practice of awarding fixed-rate amounts of EUR 2,000 to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses in the Ivanov-type of cases did not constitute adequate just satisfaction within the meaning of Article 41 of the Convention. They explained that there had been a dramatic increase in inflation during 2014 and 2015 – 24.9% and 43.3%, respectively - as a result of which they had suffered financial losses in respect of the debts under the domestic decisions which had remained unenforced during that time. While the domestic law allowed creditors to demand that a debt be indexed to an official inflation rate for the whole period of default and an additional 3% annual interest rate for any outstanding amount in private law relations, it did not provide any compensation measures for public-law relations with regard to non-enforcement of domestic decisions. In other words, the default interest rate for State debts was much lower than the rate applicable in civil and business relations. Thus, the applicants suggested that, when awarding compensation under Article 41, the Court should take into consideration the losses caused by high inflation in Ukraine during the period of non-enforcement of the domestic decisions.

138. The applicants asserted that the domestic law, in particular the Act of 5 June 2012 on State guarantees on enforcement of judgments, did not provide an effective remedy capable of securing adequate and sufficient redress for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. Furthermore, the reason for the large number of repetitive applications submitted to the European Court was the climate of impunity enjoyed by the State officials who had violated the Convention.

139. Finally, in their memorial dated 28 April 2016 in response to the Government’s above submissions, the applicants asked the Court to continue its examination of their applications and not to leave them alone in a one‑sided fight with the Government. In their opinion, if the external pressure exerted by the Court in delivering judgments with just satisfaction ceased to exist, the Government would fail to resolve the problem and establish an appropriate remedy at national level.

B. Admissibility

140. The Court is satisfied that the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further considers that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

C. The Court’s assessment

1. Preliminary considerations

141. At the heart of the present applications lies the division of competence established by the Convention between, on the one hand, the Court, whose function is to “ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” (Article 19 of the Convention) and, on the other, the Committee of Ministers “which shall supervise [the] execution” of the final judgments of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention). The understanding of that division of responsibility has evolved in the light of the Court’s case‑law as it has developed with regard to changing circumstances, and notably the proliferation of structural and systemic violations of the Convention. The introduction of the pilot-judgment procedure by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 31443/96, cited above, §§ 190‑191, ECHR 2004‑V), designed to deal with the phenomenon of repetitive cases arising from such violations, and further developments in the application of that procedure, have added a new dimension to the Court’s and the Committee of Ministers’ respective roles under the Convention (see also paragraphs 156-164 below).

142. In view of these developments, it has become necessary to clarify where the responsibilities lie in addressing issues arising out of a failure to execute a pilot judgment.

2. The applications before the Court and the Ivanov judgment

143. The present applications brought by four individuals and a private joint‑stock company form part of a group of 12,143 similar applications currently pending before the Court (see paragraphs 8 and 43 above). These cases originated in the same systemic problem identified in the Ivanov pilot judgment (cited above, §§ 83-88), namely the series of dysfunctions in the Ukrainian legal system which hinder the enforcement of final judgments, thus entailing a systemic problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions, combined with the absence of effective domestic remedies in respect of such shortcomings (see Ivanov, §§ 83-84).

144. The Court cannot but reiterate its findings in the Ivanov pilot judgment (§§ 89‑93), where it held that the structural problems with which it was dealing were large-scale and complex in nature and that they required the implementation of comprehensive and complex measures, possibly of a legislative and administrative character, involving various domestic authorities. In that context, it also observed that the Committee of Ministers was better placed and equipped than the Court to monitor the measures to be adopted by Ukraine in that respect (see Ivanov, § 90).

145. While recognising that it fell to the Committee of Ministers to determine what would be the most appropriate way to tackle the problems and indicate any general measures to be taken by the respondent State, the Court nevertheless stressed that specific reforms in Ukraine’s legislation and administrative practice should be implemented without delay in order to bring them into line with the Court’s conclusions and to comply with the requirements of Article 46 of the Convention (see Ivanov, § 92). It therefore directed, in the operative provisions of the judgment, that “the respondent State must set up without delay, and at the latest within one year from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy or combination of such remedies capable of securing adequate and sufficient redress for the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, in line with the Convention principles as established in the Court’s case-law” (see the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment quoted in paragraph 15 above).

146. However, despite the significant lapse of time since the delivery of the Ivanov pilot judgment on 15 October 2009, the Ukrainian Government have so far failed to implement the requisite general measures capable of addressing the root causes of the systemic problem identified by the Court and to provide an effective remedy securing redress to all victims at national level. As acknowledged on many occasions by the authorities themselves (see Ivanov, §§ 77 and 84) and recognised by the Committee of Ministers in the 2008 Interim Resolution, adopted before the Ivanov judgment (see paragraph 124 above), the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions at that time had already existed in Ukraine for more than a decade. It remains unresolved, notwithstanding the additional guidance given to the respondent State by the Committee of Ministers over the years by means of its six subsequent interim resolutions (see paragraphs 125-127 above).

147. In the meantime, since the introduction of the first applications in 1999 the Court has received some 29,000 Ivanov-type applications (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above), of which 14,430 have been examined by various judicial formations of the Court. However, 12,143 of those applications, the majority of which were lodged in years 2013-2017, are still awaiting judicial examination, despite the fact that over the past several years the Court has had recourse to an accelerated, summary procedure by means of grouped judgments and decisions (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above). Some applicants allege non-enforcement of the domestic judgments which have already been the subject of the Court’s judgments.

3. The impact of the failure to implement the Ivanov pilot judgment

148. The continuing failure over many years by Ukraine to execute the Ivanov judgment has left unresolved the systemic problem of non‑enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, thereby generating large numbers of follow-up applications which raise issues that are identical in substance to those in the instant case.

149. The Ukrainian Government have conceded that they have failed to implement the general remedial measures of the kind indicated in the pilot judgment and have also acknowledged that the systemic problem identified in that judgment is in principle capable of affecting each and every holder of an unenforced domestic judgment in Ukraine (see paragraphs 130-134 above). According to data presented by the Government to the Committee of Ministers, the number of persons with unenforced judicial decisions stands at some 120,000 (see paragraph 126 above).

150. The above situation, with such a massive influx of applications, is liable to affect the Court’s ability to fulfil its mission under Article 19 in relation to other meritorious applications warranting examination. In that context, the Court finds it important to recall that on the date of delivery of this judgment, 72,100 cases earmarked as meritorious are awaiting examination, of which over 27,000 concern non-repetitive Convention issues, including allegations of serious human rights violations.

151. The respondent State’s continued failure to take appropriate general measures, thus leaving the systemic problem unresolved, led the Court to adopt a practice of dealing with the Ivanov follow-up cases in an accelerated, simplified summary procedure for grouped judgments and strike-out decisions, essentially limited to a statement of a violation and award of just satisfaction. This allowed the applicants to obtain swiftly a decision affording them financial redress (see, for example, Rozhenko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 2644/04 and 23 other applications, 11 April 2013 and paragraphs 28-29 above).

152. However, that judicial policy of wholesale delivery of rulings has not had any meaningful impact on the overall systemic problem identified in Ivanov. Nor has it resulted in any apparent progress in the execution process (see paragraphs 43-44, 124-128 and 131 above). Furthermore, every year growing numbers of applicants, instead of receiving appropriate redress at domestic level, have applied to the Court in order to obtain financial relief under Article 41 of the Convention. As noted above (see paragraph 146 above), some new applications concern non-enforcement of domestic decisions which have already been the subject of the Court’s judgments finding a violation of the Convention.

153. On adoption of the Ivanov judgment at the end of September 2009 1,400 follow-up cases were pending before the Court (see Ivanov, cited above, § 86). At present, notwithstanding that the Court has already dealt with 14,430 such cases, 12,143 are pending (see Ivanov, cited above, § 86, and paragraphs 43-44 above).

154. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the present state of affairs is that if the Court examines the present cases and all the other follow up cases in the same or a similar manner, it will face the inevitable prospect that growing numbers of applicants in Ukraine will turn to it for redress in the future (see also paragraph 148 above). In reaching that conclusion, the Court also relies on the Committee of Ministers’ assessment of the situation at its meeting on 20 and 21 September 2016, to the effect that the measures for settling all already pending cases through friendly settlements or unilateral declarations would not provide a lasting solution to the problem because the Court will still be at risk of receiving new applications as long as the root cause of the problem is not addressed (see paragraph 127 above).

155. The Court observes that it runs the risk of operating as part of the Ukrainian legal enforcement system and substituting itself for the Ukrainian authorities in directing “appropriate and sufficient redress for the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions”, as required under the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment. That task is not compatible with the subsidiary role which the Court is supposed to play in relation to the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and Article 19 of the Convention, and runs directly counter to the logic of the pilot-judgment procedure developed by the Court.

156. The Court must therefore consider how this situation can best be addressed in a way which respects the rationale of the pilot-judgment procedure as conceived in the Broniowski judgment (cited above, § 193), in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity underpinning that rationale. In particular, it must examine whether it should act as a mechanism for awarding compensation in respect of the large numbers of repetitive applications which follow pilot or leading judgments whose execution is to be supervised by the Committee of Ministers pursuant to Article 46 § 2 of the Convention.

4. The object and purpose of the pilot judgment procedure

(a) General principles

157. The Court has been dealing with mass litigation arising out of different structural or systemic problems in the Contracting States for nearly two decades. These human rights deficiencies in the Contracting States give rise to constantly growing numbers of applications to the Court and jeopardise the long-term effectiveness of the human rights protection system set up by the Convention (see paragraph 111 above, and also Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999‑V; Di Mauro v. Italy [GC], no. 34256/96, § 23, ECHR 1999‑V; and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 148, ECHR 2000‑XI).

158. The pilot-judgment procedure was conceived as a response to the growth in the Court’s caseload, caused by a series of cases deriving from the same structural or systemic dysfunction, and to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Convention machinery (see paragraphs 108-112 and Broniowski (merits), cited above, §§ 190 and 191).

159. The dual purpose of that procedure is, on the one hand, to reduce the threat to the effective functioning of the Convention system and, on the other, to facilitate the most speedy and effective resolution of a dysfunction affecting the protection of Convention rights in the national legal order. By incorporating into the process of execution of the pilot judgment the interests of all other existing or potential victims of the systemic problem identified, the procedure aims to afford proper relief to all actual and potential victims of that dysfunction, as well as to the particular applicant(s) in the pilot case (Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 193). The provision of such “adequate and sufficient redress”, to use the language of the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment, is, according to the logic of the pilot-judgment procedure, a treaty obligation attaching to execution of the pilot judgment, the observance of which is to be supervised by the Committee of Ministers, with the Court’s role being essentially limited to its identification of a systemic problem and, if appropriate, indication of general remedial measures to be taken in execution. Thus, the effect of the pilot-judgment procedure is to place the granting of relief to victims in follow-up cases within the framework of execution proceedings (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, §§ 191, 193 and 194; Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 36 and 37, ECHR 2005‑IX; Hutten‑Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 238, ECHR 2006‑VIII; Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 86‑87, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, §§ 94-96, 18 October 2016). Moreover, the Court does not have the capacity, nor is it appropriate to its function to adjudicate on large numbers of repetitive cases which require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation – both of which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdictions (see, mutatis mutandis, Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and seven other applications, § 69, ECHR 2010, cited in Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and ten other applications, §§ 207 and 210, 1 July 2014).

160. It follows that the Court’s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant and requires it to examine the case before it also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interests of other already or potentially affected persons (Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 238; Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, § 73, 4 December 2007, Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others, cited above, §§ 86-87; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, §§ 94-96).

161. According to the rationale of the pilot judgment, therefore, the respondent State is required to eliminate the source of the violation for the future and to provide a remedy for the past prejudice suffered not only by the individual applicant(s) in the pilot case but also by all other victims of the same type of violation. The intention is that, under the umbrella of the general measures required of the respondent State, all the other victims are absorbed into the process of execution of the pilot judgment.

(b) Examples of pilot judgments

162. Since the Broniowski judgment of 22 June 2004, the Court has delivered thirty-five final pilot judgments, whereby it directed the Contracting States to take general measures in the interest of all existing and potential victims in order to resolve various dysfunctions in national human rights protection identified by the Court as “systemic” or “structural” problems, notably:

– legislative dysfunctions or defective practices affecting property rights (Hutten-Czapska, cited above; Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, 3 November 2009; Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06, 12 October 2010; and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014;

– excessive length of proceedings (Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005 X, Rumpf v. Germany, no. 46344/06, 2 September 2010; Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, no. 50973/08, 21 December 2010; Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09, 10 May 2011; Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011; Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012; Michelioudakis v. Greece, no. 54447/10, 3 April 2012, Glykantzi v. Greece, no. 40150/09, 30 October 2012; Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, 7 July 2015; and Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015);

– inadequate conditions of detention (Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04 and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012; Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, nos. 43517/09, and six other applications, 8 January 2013; Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and five other applications, 27 January 2015; Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12 and five other applications, 10 March 2015; and Rezmiveş and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017);

– non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and decisions (Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009; Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07 and 3 others, 28 July 2009; Ivanov, cited above; Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos. 604/07 and 3 Others, 31 July 2012; and Gerasimov and Others, cited above;

– other issues (Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, 22 December 2005; Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009; Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Kurić and Others, cited above; M.C. and Others v. Italy, no. 5376/11, 3 September 2013; and W.D. v. Belgium, no. 73548/13, 6 September 2016).

163. Most pilot judgments have been successfully implemented by means of general remedial measures introduced by the respondent States. Where such measures included a new legal remedy – compensatory or otherwise – capable of providing sufficient and adequate redress at domestic level, the Court declared the follow-up cases inadmissible for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and “repatriated” them to the States in question (see, for instance, Demopoulos and Others, cited above; Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia (dec.), nos. 27451/09 and 60650/09, 23 September 2010; Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010; Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013; Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 6194/11 and 34887/11, 18 June 2013; Techniki Olympiaki A.E. v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013; Stella and 10 Other applications v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, 16 September 2014; and Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09, 9 October 2014).

164. Where the States introduced amending legislation providing existing and potential victims of a systemic violation with relief at domestic level such that the Court’s further examination of similar applications was no longer justified, it struck those cases out of its list on the ground that the matter had been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, through the adoption of general measures, including compensatory remedies for redress with retrospective effect (see Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, §§ 72-77; E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications v. Poland (dec.), no 50425/99, §§ 22‑25, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others, cited above, §§ 82-89; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, §§ 89-102).

Three pilot-judgment procedures were formally closed by virtue of the Court’s decisions following the implementation of general measures (see E.G. v Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications, cited above, §§ 25-29, and the second operative provision of the decision; Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others, cited above, § 90, and the third operative provision of the decision; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, § 103, and the second operative provision of the decision).

(c) Procedure for follow-up cases under the Court’s pilot-judgment procedure

165. As stated above (see paragraph 159 above), it is inherent in the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court examines the issues involved also from the perspective of the interests of other potentially affected persons. That assessment necessarily encompasses the procedure for similar cases – those currently pending and those liable to be lodged with the Court in the future (see, among other examples, Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 198; Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 142-146; and Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 223-229).

166. Since the Broniowski judgment it has been the Court’s consistent practice to include in pilot judgments, in addition to rulings in the pilot case, various procedural decisions concerning the future treatment of follow-up cases – those communicated to the respondent Government and new ones alike. For instance, the Court has often decided to adjourn similar cases pending the implementation of general measures by the respondent State (see, among other examples, Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 198; Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 247; Kurić, cited above, § 415; Ivanov, cited above, §§ 97-99, and the seventh operative provision of the judgment; Olaru and Others, cited above, §§ 60-61, and the sixth operative provision of the judgment; Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 146, and the eight operative provision of the judgment; Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 227-229, and the tenth and eleventh operative provisions of the judgment; Gerasimov and Others, cited above, § 232, and the fourteenth operative provision of the judgment; and W.D. v Belgium, cited above, § 174, and the seventh operative provision of the judgment). It has discontinued its examination of similar applications already pending before it and suspended the treatment of any applications not yet registered at the date of delivery of the pilot judgment (see Greens and M.T., cited above, §§ 121-122). It has also anticipated its rulings on the admissibility of pending and future cases, holding that, in certain circumstances, it “may declare [them] inadmissible in accordance with the Convention” (see Suljagić, cited above, § 65). Where appropriate, the Court has decided to communicate, by virtue of the pilot judgment, all similar applications lodged with it before the date of delivery of the judgment (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 226-227, and the ninth operative provision of the judgment). That practice, embracing a range of solutions, reflects the rationale of the pilot-judgment procedure, according to which all cases deriving from the same systemic root cause are incorporated into its framework and absorbed into the execution process of the pilot judgment (see paragraphs 158-161 above).

5. The need to adopt a new approach in post-Ivanov cases

167. In the present case, the Court, considering the observations of the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 124-128 and 146 above), is confronted with the challenge to give new guidance after a pilot judgment which has so far clearly not succeeded in achieving its aims (see paragraphs 11‑15).

168. Since the first Ivanov-type applications were registered in 1999, the Court has received some 29,000 similar cases. In 2012-2017 alone, it delivered nearly 6,000 post-Ivanov judicial decisions whereby, under grouped judgments or strike-out decisions, the applicants were granted amounts of between EUR 1,000 and EUR 3,000 and, subsequently, EUR 2,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in each and every case (see paragraphs 28, 32 and 43 above). The total sum of just satisfaction awards against Ukraine in that period – approximately EUR 12 million – constitutes an important part of the value of the claims under the as yet unenforced judgments which, according to the Ukrainian Government, totals EUR 89 million (see paragraphs 124‑128 above). Despite that, every month over 200 Ivanov follow-up applications are being registered by the Court (see paragraph 44 above).

169. Post-Ivanov cases currently account for almost one third of all the repetitive applications pending (see paragraph 8 above). The volume of cases has continued to grow despite the procedural and administrative measures taken to deal with those cases as speedily and efficiently as possible and despite the guidance repeatedly given to the respondent State by the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 23-44 and 124-128 above).

170. In exercising its function of supervision of the Court’s judgments, the Committee of Ministers has clearly acknowledged that the situation in Ivanov-type cases where general measures have not been implemented within a reasonable time creates a serious threat to the Convention system (see also paragraphs 127 and 128 above). In the instant case, the failure of the respondent State to implement the pilot judgment has for many years resulted in a constant and increasing inflow of applications where the Court’s only role has been to continually repeat its finding of a Convention violation made in the Ivanov judgment and award just satisfaction or accept the Government’s acknowledgment of a violation and their undertaking to pay financial compensation.

171. Under the practice so far adopted by the Court (see paragraphs 43 and 151 above) the ineffective execution of the Ivanov judgment continues – and will continue, unless a satisfactory solution is adopted in the procedure before the Committee Ministers – to give rise to repetitive findings of a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of each and every unenforced judgment holder in Ukraine for the foreseeable future. According to the material in the Committee of Ministers’ possession, there are 120,000 non‑executed judgment holders in Ukraine (see paragraph 126 above).

172. In the Court’s view, this situation in the Ivanov-type cases indicates that it needs to change its approach to the treatment of follow-up cases arising from the same systemic cause. The Court would again refer to the Committee of Ministers’ assessment made in September 2016 that it is not the settlement of claims via non-contentious procedures before the Court but only a lasting solution to the root cause of the problem adopted in the execution process that can provide an adequate response to the present situation (see paragraph 127 above) .

173. Even if that individual redress could be achieved by determining the merits and awarding just satisfaction for non‑pecuniary damage in the case under review (see paragraph 126 above), the Court considers that there is a strong general interest in espousing an approach which is capable, in the longer run, of preserving the respective roles under Articles 19 and 46 of the Convention of the Court, the respondent Government and the Committee of Ministers (see paragraphs 152-156 above).

174. Bearing in mind its efforts in examining Ivanov-type cases for over sixteen years (see paragraph 10 above), the Court concludes that nothing is to be gained, nor will justice be best served, by the repetition of its findings in a lengthy series of comparable cases, which would place a significant burden on its own resources, with a consequent impact on its considerable caseload. In particular, such an exercise would not contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human rights protection under the Convention (see Greens and M.T., cited above, § 120; E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications, cited above, § 27; and Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others and Others, cited above, § 44).

175. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the value for Convention purposes of the continued examination of Ivanov-type applications is clearly in issue. Accordingly the question arises as to whether it is justified to continue to examine the post-Ivanov applications, having regard to Articles 19 and 46 of the Convention and to the Court’s power under Article 37 § 1 (c) to strike an application out of its list when no such justification exists (see paragraph 200 below for the text of Article 37).

6. Whether it is justified to continue examination of Ivanov-type applications having regard to Articles 19 and 46 of the Convention

(a) As regards Article 19

176. Article 19 of the Convention states:

“To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Court’. It shall function on a permanent basis.”

177. The Court has previously held that there may be instances where, after it has identified a systemic problem in a pilot judgment, the respondent State delays the implementation of general measures beyond a reasonable time (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 198) and leaves the problem unresolved, thus generating repetitive Convention violations for an indefinite time. According to statements made in some previous cases, including Ivanov, in such circumstances the Court will have no choice but to examine and take to judgment the remaining applications pending before it in order to trigger the execution process before the Committee of Ministers and to ensure the observance of the Convention at domestic level (see E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River Applications, cited above, § 28; Ivanov, cited above, § 100; Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 136, ECHR 2014).

178. However, in some cases the Court has mentioned the possibility of a different approach, which it now considers to be more convincing in the light of the experience of the present case.

179. Referring to its role after the delivery of a pilot judgment in its decision in E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River Applications (cited above), whereby the pilot-judgment procedure applied in the case of Broniowski was closed, the Court recalled that its principal task under the Convention is, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, “to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”. A requirement to deliver, continually, individual decisions in cases where there was no longer any live Convention issue could not be said to be compatible with this task. Nor did this judicial exercise contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human rights protection under the Convention (ibid., §§ 27-28).

180. The Court did not rule out that in the future it might wish to redefine its role in this respect and decline to examine such cases (see E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications, cited above, § 27).

181. In that regard, the Court considers it important to recall that in the framework of the pilot-judgment procedure, one of the essential objectives of which is, as already reiterated above, to induce the respondent State to introduce a remedy for all victims of a systemic violation, the responsibility for affording reparation is necessarily shifted back to the domestic authorities. The Court’s principal task is defined by Article 19 of the Convention, the adjudication on awards under Article 41 being only accessory to this task. Consequently, and having regard to the purpose of the pilot-judgment procedure which, as stated above, is to assist States in resolving systemic problems at national level, thereby securing to persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms as required by Article 1 of the Convention, the Court’s role under Article 19 cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in each and every repetitive case arising from the same systemic situation (see Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 76; Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others, cited above, § 87; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, §§ 95-96).

182. In the Court’s view, given that its practice hitherto in Ivanov-type cases (see paragraphs 148-156 above) has been shown by experience to be incapable of achieving its intended purpose, the time has now come for it to redefine, as indicated in E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications (cited above, § 27), its role in circumstances where the respondent State has failed to take general remedial measures within a reasonable time and the consequences that should be drawn from this in the light of Article 46 of the Convention.

(b) As regards Article 46

183. The relevant parts of Article 46 of the Convention provide as follows:

“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

...”

184. As stated above, since the delivery of the Ivanov judgment the Court, after adjournments of follow-up cases, has twice resumed examination of those cases. It has delivered some 6,000 enforceable judicial decisions either finding a violation of the Convention by means of a judgment and awarding just satisfaction, or accepting the Government’s acknowledgment of a violation and offer of payment of just satisfaction to the applicants (see paragraph 43 above). However, this repeated, continued delivery of judicial decisions has served little purpose and has failed to produce any satisfactory developments at the execution level. The execution process triggered by the series of Court rulings has remained ineffective, despite the fact that the Committee of Ministers has examined the matter under the enhanced procedure, a tool designed to address the most serious and systemic Convention violations (see paragraph 118 above).

185. Under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention, pursuant to the fundamental principle of subsidiarity underlying the Convention, the States Parties must “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms as defined in ... [the] Convention”. On the basis of that principle and their duty under Article 46 § 1 “to abide by the final judgments of the Court” the States Parties share collective responsibility for execution of the Court’s judgments, the supervisory role and responsibility in that respect being entrusted to the Committee of Ministers by virtue of Article 46 § 2 (see paragraphs 113-118 above).

186. The Court would reiterate in that connection that the Contracting States have on many occasions expressed their deep concern about the threat that repetitive cases pose for the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention system. They have constantly emphasised that the effective execution of the Court’s judgments is crucial in securing the long-term effectiveness of the Convention’s supervisory bodies (see paragraphs 109‑111 above).

187. In this context, when adopting Protocol No. 14 to the Convention as the central part of the whole package of reform measures taken by the Contracting States in order to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system (see also Broniowski (merits) §§ 190-191), the Committee of Ministers pointed out that the prompt and full execution of the Court’s judgments was vital so as to ensure that the Court was not swamped with repetitive applications. It further underlined that the Contracting States had a collective duty to assist the Committee whenever a Contracting State refuses, explicitly or through its conduct, to comply with the Court’s final judgment in a case to which it is party (see paragraphs 108‑109 above).

188. The States Parties have therefore recognised the paramount importance of execution of the Court’s judgments in the context of repetitive cases for the effective operation of the Convention machinery and committed themselves collectively to ensuring that the Court’s judgments disclosing systemic defects are fully implemented. This is confirmed by the declarations adopted at a series of high-level conferences on the future of the Court (see paragraphs 119-123 above).

189. The Interlaken Declaration called upon the States Parties to commit themselves “to fully executing the Court’s judgments, ensuring that the necessary measures are taken to prevent further similar violations.” (see paragraph 120 above).

190. The Izmir Declaration invited the States “to cooperate fully with the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the new methods of supervision of execution of judgments of the Court” (see paragraph 121 above).

191. In the Brighton Declaration the States stressed that “repetitive applications mostly arise from systemic or structural issues at the national level. It is the responsibility of a State Party, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to ensure that such issues and resulting violations are resolved as part of the effective execution of the judgments of the Court”. They also expressed their “continued concern about the large number of repetitive applications pending before the Court”, welcoming “the continued use by the Court of proactive measures, particularly pilot judgments, to dispose of repetitive applications” and encouraging “the States Parties, the Committee of Ministers and the Court to work together to find ways to resolve the large numbers of applications arising from systemic issues identified by the Court” (see paragraph 122 above).

192. In their most recent Declaration, adopted in Brussels on 26‑27 March 2015, the Contracting States reiterated the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention, and in particular the primary role played by national authorities. They emphasised the importance of the full, effective and prompt execution of judgments and of a strong political commitment by the States Parties in this respect, thus strengthening the credibility of the Court and the Convention system in general. The Contracting States further noted that “emphasis must now be placed on the current challenges, in particular the repetitive applications resulting from the non-execution of Court judgments ... and the difficulties of States Parties in executing certain judgments due to the scale, nature or cost of the problems raised” (see paragraph 123 above).

193. As stated in the Brighton Declaration (see paragraph 3 of the Declaration quoted at paragraph 122 above), the Court shares with the Contracting States “responsibility for realising the effective implementation of the Convention, underpinned by the fundamental principle of subsidiarity”. However, the Court’s competence as defined by Article 19 of the Convention and its role under Article 46 of the Convention in the context of the pilot-judgment procedure do not extend to ensuring the implementation of its own judgments. Nor can the Court be converted into a body supervising execution of judgments.

194. The division of tasks between the Court and the Committee of Ministers is clear – the Court may assist the respondent State in fulfilling its obligations under Article 46 by seeking to indicate the type of measure that might be taken by the State in order to put an end to a systemic problem identified by the Court. However, it is for the Committee of Ministers to supervise the execution of the judgment and ensure that the State has discharged its legal obligation under Article 46, including the taking of such general remedial measures as may be required by the pilot judgment in relation to affording relief to all the other victims, existing or potential, of the systemic defect found (see Broniowski (merits), §§ 193-194). Thus, in the Broniowski case, the Court held that the respondent State should, through appropriate legal and administrative measures, secure the effective and expeditious realisation of the entitlement in question in respect of the remaining claimants at national level (see Broniowski (merits), § 194).

195. The situation faced by the Court in the Ivanov‑type cases in essence derives from an ineffective execution of the Court’s final judgment, requiring the adoption of general measures under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers in order to eliminate the root cause of a systemic problem continually generating numerous applications to the Court. The problems involved are fundamentally of a financial and political nature and, as shown by the developments following the Ivanov pilot judgment (see paragraphs 137, 142 and 168 above), their resolution lies outside the Court’s competence under the Convention, as defined by Article 19. They can be addressed adequately only between the respondent State, on the one hand, and the Committee of Ministers, on the other, the latter being empowered under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments.

196. It is therefore incumbent on the respondent State and the Committee of Ministers to assume their responsibilities under Article 46 and ensure that the Court’s Ivanov pilot judgment is fully implemented and that, in addition to the necessary general measures addressing the root cause of the problem, individual applicants are provided with appropriate relief at domestic level, including a scheme offering to them redress for the Convention violation identified by the Court that would serve the same function as an award under Article 41 of the Convention (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 193; also, mutatis mutandis, Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and Others, cited above, § 88; and Anastasov and Others, cited above, § 98).

(c) Conclusion

197. The legal issues under the Convention concerning prolonged non‑enforcement of domestic decisions in Ukraine were already resolved in the Ivanov pilot judgment. The Court thereby discharged its function under Article 19 of the Convention. In particular it identified the systemic shortcoming, it held there to be a violation of the Convention by reason of this shortcoming, and it gave guidance as to the general measures to be taken under Article 46 for the satisfactory execution of the pilot judgment so as to ensure relief and redress for all victims, past, present and future, of the systemic violation found. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, which underlies the whole Convention and not only the pilot judgment procedure, the matter treated by the Ivanov pilot judgment, including the provision of redress for victims of the systemic violation of the Convention found in Ivanov, is a question of execution under Article 46 of the Convention.

198. The present case and all similar 12,143 cases pending before the Court, as well as any similar future cases to be submitted to it, are part and parcel of the process of execution of the pilot judgment. Their resolution, including individual measures of redress, must necessarily be encompassed by the general measures of execution to be put in place by the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. Consequently, all such cases fall to be dealt with under the execution process and should be notified to the Committee of Ministers in its capacity as the body which, under the Convention system, has the responsibility to oversee redress and justice for all the victims affected by the systemic problem found in a pilot judgment (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, § 193 and Ivanov, cited above, §§ 94-95), including the applicants whose names are mentioned in the appended lists.

199. Having regard to the respective competences of the Court and the Committee of Ministers under Articles 19 and 46 of the Convention, the Court is forced to conclude that no useful purpose is served in terms of the Convention’s aims in its continuing to deal with these cases in accordance with the practice hitherto followed. That being said the Court must now consider whether in these circumstances it may and should exercise its power under Article 37 § 1 (c) to strike the applications out of its list.

7. Application of Article 37 of the Convention

200. In so far as relevant this Article reads:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

...

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.

2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”

201. The pilot-judgment procedure is designed to assist the Contracting States in fulfilling their role in the Convention system by resolving such problems at national level, thereby securing to all actual and potential victims of the systemic problem the Convention rights and freedoms as required by Article 1 of the Convention, offering to them more rapid redress and, at the same time, easing the burden on the Court which would otherwise have to take to judgment large numbers of applications similar in substance, at the expense of other meritorious cases (see, among many other authorities, Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35; Hutten‑Czapska, cited above, §§ 231-234; Ivanov, cited above, § 95; and Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 34; see also paragraphs 156-162 above).

202. In the light of the foregoing considerations, most importantly the fact that the interests of the present applicants and all other existing and potential victims of the systemic problem in question are more appropriately protected in the execution process, the Court has found that the Convention aims are not best served by continuing to deal with post‑Ivanov cases. It therefore concludes that the continued examination of the case is not justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c). It remains to be determined whether “respect for human rights” requires it nonetheless to continue that examination.

203. In all such cases each and every current and future applicant is, to all intents and purposes, a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, entitled to have the pilot judgment fully executed at domestic level in compliance with Article 46 § 1 and to obtain “adequate and sufficient redress”, as required under the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment. Such redress should include enforcement of domestic judgments in their favour. In that context, the Court would reiterate that, as it has repeatedly held in numerous Ivanov-type cases, the Ukrainian State has an outstanding obligation to enforce domestic judgments which remain enforceable (see Pysarskyy and Others, cited above, § 25).

204. As stated above, the grievances raised in these applications must be resolved in the context of the general measures required by the execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment, including the provision of appropriate and sufficient redress for the Convention violations found in that judgment (see paragraphs 154, 201-203 above and the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov pilot judgment), which measures are subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. Accordingly, and having regard to the different processes engaged to this end, the Court further concludes that respect for human rights within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 in fine does not require such continued examination of the applications in question from the point of view of individual redress.

205. Nor does it find that the case raises important issues more generally concerning the duties to be observed by the Contracting States in this field, other than those already clarified in the different phases of the pilot‑judgment procedure (see, a contrario, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 82, ECHR 2016). On the contrary, the overall interest of the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system militates in favour of the approach outlined above (see paragraphs 143-161 and 168-199 above).

206. In view of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine the Court finds no circumstances regarding respect for human rights as provided for in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the present case and other Ivanov type applications.

207. Finally, the Court recalls that this conclusion is without prejudice to its power to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the present, or any other similar application, to the list of cases if the circumstances justify such a course (see paragraph 223 below).

208. Accordingly, the Court decides to strike out the applications in question under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

8. Procedure to be followed in similar applications

209. As in previous pilot judgments (see paragraphs 165 and 166 above above), the Court considers it appropriate to determine the procedure to be adopted in similar applications – those already pending and those to be lodged in the future.

(a) General considerations

210. The Court is faced with a serious problem of case overload which originates in structural or systemic situations in different contracting States (see paragraphs 148 et seq. above). This phenomenon carries the risk of preventing the Court from being able to focus on cases raising new and serious issues of Convention compliance in the States concerned and from dealing with such cases in good time. The pilot-judgment procedure, the essence of which is to transfer back to the domestic system responsibility for affording redress once the problem has been identified by the Court in a pilot judgment, was developed as a response to this threat.

As shown by the Court’s above-mentioned practice (see paragraphs 165‑166 above), one of the important features of that procedure is its flexibility, enabling the Court to adapt its decisions regarding follow-up cases to a variety of legal and factual situations in order to achieve the dual objectives of securing the most efficient procedural solution and ensuring that the respondent State satisfies its Convention obligations under Articles 1 and 46 § 1, notably as regards providing adequate relief for all the victims, existing and potential, of any systemic violation found (see Rutkowski and Others, cited above, § 226, with further references to Burdov and Broniowski (merits)).

211. Under Article 31 of the Convention the Grand Chamber is competent in particular to determine applications submitted under Article 34 where a Chamber has relinquished jurisdiction under Article 30, as in the present case. Under Article 30 a chamber may relinquish jurisdiction when a case pending before it raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention. Article 43, which governs referral to the Grand Chamber, requires that, to be accepted for referral, a case must raise a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto or a serious issue of general importance.

212. It may be inferred from these provisions that the role of the Grand Chamber is to address and resolve issues of general importance for the Convention system. In the context of a pilot judgment, this entails focusing not only on the individual case before the Court, but also on the general problem that gave rise to it. By definition pilot judgments determine the outcome of large numbers of cases in addition to the specific case pending before the Court and incorporate the interests of other actually or potentially affected persons (see paragraphs 157-165 above). This has been accepted and recognised by the Contracting States (see for example point 20 (c) of the Brighton Declaration welcoming the continued use of pilot judgments, paragraph 122 above). The legitimacy of the pilot-judgment procedure is thus not contested, and it is now enshrined in the Rules of Court (Rule 61), as requested by the Contracting States in the Interlaken Declaration, calling on the Court to “develop clear and predictable standards as regards selection of applications and the procedure to be followed and the treatment of adjourned cases” (see paragraph 120 above). Moreover, in the Brighton Declaration, the States envisaged the pilot-judgment procedure evolving towards “a procedure whereby the Court could register and determine a small number of representative applications from a group of applications that allege the same violation against the same respondent State Party, such determination being applicable to the whole group” (see paragraph 20 of the Declaration quoted at paragraph 122 above).

213. The question therefore arises whether, in the interests of the efficient administration of justice, in cases such as the present one which derive from a pilot-judgment procedure, the Grand Chamber can join, to the case of which it is seised under Article 30, other pending cases, that will, by virtue of the decision in the relinquished case, have the same outcome, or whether it is necessary for the Court to adopt a separate decision or judgment for the other applicants. It is clear that under Rule 42 § 1 a chamber would have this power and could exercise it at any stage of the proceedings before it has rendered its judgment. A fortiori, there appears to be no good reason why the Court’s highest judicial formation should not have the same power. This conclusion is reinforced by the principle set out in Rule 71 § 1 to the effect that “any provisions governing proceedings before the chambers shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to proceedings before the Grand Chamber”. This reflects the need to ensure coherence as between proceedings before the Court’s formations. In addition, where a chamber relinquishes jurisdiction in the context of a pilot-judgment procedure, it in effect relinquishes jurisdiction over the whole process, including the follow‑up cases.

214. Moreover, since the purpose of the pilot judgment is to place all victims of the systemic violation identified on an equal footing as regards obtaining redress through the execution process, it is both more fitting and more effective, also from the point of view of ensuring individual justice, to pursue that goal through a Grand Chamber judgment encompassing all the victims who have so far addressed their complaint to the Court. It is worth recalling, finally, in this context that under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention the Court’s jurisdiction “[extends] to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in Articles 33, 34 and 47” and that “in the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction”, the decision is a matter for the Court (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 53, 17 September 2009).

215. As observed above, the resolution of the present applications and the 12,143 pending applications – whether or not those applications have been communicated to the respondent State – is more properly part of the process of execution of the Ivanov pilot judgment and redress for the systemic problem found in the Ivanov judgment should be afforded to all victims, including all those who have already lodged applications with the Court, within the framework of the execution procedure, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (see also the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment and paragraphs 195-196 and 203-204 above).

(b) Cases listed in the appendices to the present judgment

216. A list of post-Ivanov applications pending before the Court on the date of the delivery of the present judgment is set out in two appendices to this judgment. They comprise 12,143 applications. Appendix I includes 7,641 applications of which notice has been given to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court. Appendix II includes 4,502 applications of which notice has not yet been given to the respondent Government.

217. All these applicants in essence complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of continued non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions.

(c) Decision adopted by the Court

218. Being mindful of the general threat to the proper functioning of the Convention system posed by the phenomenon of repetitive cases, as well as of the increasing emphasis on shared responsibility and the principle of subsidiarity (see paragraphs 119-123 above), the Court finds it appropriate to approach the repetitive Ivanov applications as follows.

(i) As regards pending applications

219. Having regard to the fact that all those applications originated in the same systemic problem as found in Ivanov and that they concern essentially the same issues of fact and law as the present case and to its conclusions above (see paragraphs 211-212 above), the Court considers that they should be joined to the present case, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court read together with Rule 71 § 1.

220. Furthermore, for the reasons set out above (see paragraphs 200‑208 and 211-212 above), the Court finds that the 7,641 communicated applications listed in Appendix I and 4,502 new applications listed in Appendix II to this judgment should be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention also.

(ii) As regards future similar applications

221. Considering that the same reasoning applies to any future well‑founded Ivanov‑type applications that may be lodged after the delivery of this judgment, the Court may strike them out of the list of its cases and transmit them directly to the Committee of Ministers, save those applications which are found to be inadmissible under Article 35 of the Convention.

222. Furthermore, bearing in mind the Committee of Ministers Resolution on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem of 12 May 2004 (Res (2004)3; see paragraph 112 above), the Court will ensure that the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe’s institutions referred to in the Resolution are properly notified of any future similar cases and relevant developments concerning the Ivanov follow-up cases (see Greens and M.T., cited above, § 122). The Committee of Ministers and the respondent State will be provided with the Court’s judgments/decisions listing such applications, which should then be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the pilot judgment at national level, in such a way as to ensure appropriate relief for all applicants in those applications (see also the fifth operative provision of the Ivanov judgment).

(iii) Final consideration

223. As stated above (see paragraph 207 above), the decision to strike Ivanov follow-up applications out of the Court’s list of cases is without any prejudice to its power to restore to the list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the applications listed in the appendices to the judgment, or any other similar future applications, if the circumstances justify such a course. The Court envisages that it may be appropriate to reassess the situation within two years of the delivery of the present judgment with a view to considering whether in the meantime there have occurred circumstances such as to justify its exercising this power.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Decides, by ten votes to seven, to join the five applications listed in paragraph 1 of the present judgment and the 12,143 applications listed in Appendices I and II to this judgment;

2. Declares, by majority, the five applications nos. 46852/13, 47786/13, 54125/13, 56605/13 and 3653/14 lodged by Ms Lidiya Ivanivna Burmych and four others admissible;

3. Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that the aforementioned five applications and the 12,143 applications listed in the Appendices I and II to this judgment fall to be dealt with in compliance with the obligation deriving from the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009) finding the existence of a structural problem giving rise to a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

4. Decides, by ten votes to seven, to strike these applications out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and transmit them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the above-mentioned Ivanov pilot judgment, including the provision of redress for the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, as stipulated in the fifth operative provision of that judgment, and payment of the judgment debt.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

              Roderick LiddellGuido Raimondi
RegistrarPresident

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:

(a) Joint dissenting opinion of Judges Yudkivska, Sajó, Bianku, Karakaş, De Gaetano, Laffranque and Motoc;

(b) Dissenting opinion of Judge Sajó.

G.R.
R.L.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES YUDKIVSKA, SAJÓ, BIANKU, KARAKAŞ, DE GAETANO, LAFFRANQUE AND MOTOC

1. The present judgment has nothing to do with the legal interpretation of human rights. It concerns a matter of judicial policy only, and as such completely changes the well-established paradigm of the Convention system. Of course the European Court of Human Rights is supposed to concentrate on the most serious human rights violations and landmark decisions on European values. However, the Court cannot, on account of a heavy caseload, just cease to perform its judicial tasks, leave the applicants in an unpredictable position and transfer the judicial responsibility on to a political body which unfortunately has so far had little impact on helping the respondent Government to properly execute the pilot judgment and to enact general measures. The Court itself has repeatedly emphasised that the Convention rights need to be practical and effective and that a fair trial does not end with a judgment, but that the judgment also needs to be properly executed. The Court should take seriously the fact that this principle applies not only to national judgments but also to its own judgments. Every applicant to this Court has to be taken seriously and cannot be considered as a “burden”.

2. To our regret, we disagree with the majority as to the conclusion and to the reasoning, for several reasons.

(i) As a matter of judicial responsibility

3. First of all, we strongly disagree with the first point of the operative part of the judgment. The majority decides to join the applications in the present case and the 12,143 applications listed in Appendices I and II to this judgment. It does not appear from the proceedings that any of the other 12,143 cases has been the subject of a judicial determination as to the facts or legal qualification of the claims advanced by the applicants in those cases. The formation of the Grand Chamber which considered the present case does not know the facts of any of those 12,143 applications. Moreover, only a few of those cases have been communicated to the respondent Government, which is now in a position to tell the Court whether the applicants in the cases in question are still victims of the violations of which they complained. Therefore, we feel ill-equipped to decide on the presumption that they are similar to the five applications nos. 46852/13, 47786/13, 54125/13, 56605/13 and 3653/14, having been unable to assess each of the cases individually. We consequently consider it inappropriate to decide to join them to the applications in Burmych, Yaremchuk, Varava, Neborachko and Izolyatsiya, PAT.

4. Secondly, and consequently, we cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority in point 4 of the operative part of the judgment. As neither the Grand Chamber nor any other judicial formation of the Court has assessed the facts and the legal aspects of each of the other 12,143 applications, we are unable to follow the majority position that those applications fell to be dealt with in compliance with the obligation deriving from the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04) of 15 October 2009. No case, including strike-out decisions, can be decided without individual judicial consideration of the application, and no judicial decision can be taken without examining the case file. In fact – but this is an incidental point – four of us (Yudkivska, Bianku, De Gaetano and Laffranque) disagree also with the way operative point 3 is formulated.

5. As specified in paragraph 43 of the judgment, since 3 July 2012 the Court has examined and disposed of 14,430 Ivanov-type cases through judgments, inadmissibility decisions, strike-out decisions following friendly settlements, unilateral declarations or other grounds. That being the case, it seems very curious that the Grand Chamber was able to lump together the remaining 12,143 cases and dispose of them under strike-out decisions without first assessing their individual characteristics, which could easily be very different. In any event, we believe it is the duty of any court, and especially of a Human Rights Court, not to dispose of human rights claims in a summary manner. The Convention requires that each and every application submitted to the Court be given an individual and attentive judicial assessment, whether by a single judge, a Committee, a Chamber or a Grand Chamber formation. Moreover, such evaluation of the merits has been an elementary requirement for all judicial decisions since time immemorial. Therefore, and thirdly, we cannot agree with the 4th point of the operative part of the judgment, to the effect that those applications should be summarily struck out of the Court’s list, without a concrete judicial assessment of the facts of each case. After all, those cases correspond to a very large number of the applications before the Court.

6. Fourthly, the majority’s choice is a rather dangerous one for a judicial body. Paragraph 203 of the judgment decides pro futuro. It specifies that “in all such cases each and every current and future applicant is, to all intents and purposes, a ‘victim’ within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention”. How could the Court decide that a future applicant is a victim without analysing his or her application, even before the application is actually submitted?(!). We would not know whether such applications are admissible or manifestly ill-founded, or constitute abuse of petition, before looking at them one by one. Although this point is to some extent clarified in paragraphs 221 and 222 of the judgment, suggesting that the Court will assess them individually, the outcome of such assessment is simply that the Court appears to become a filtering body for the Committee of Ministers. According to paragraph 221, the Court will either strike out cases on the basis of Article 37 § 1 (c) or dismiss them pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention, without performing its duty under the Convention to ensure whether or not the commitments entered into by the Ukrainian Government have been honoured. There is no adequate guarantee that these future applications will ever receive judicial scrutiny.

7. In addition, paragraph 212 of the judgment accepts that “(b)y definition, pilot judgments determine the outcome of large number of cases in addition to the specific case pending before the Court...”. With respect, we disagree with this statement as far as the concrete outcome of each future case is concerned. While the legal solution adopted by a pilot judgment could be very easily applied in similar follow-up cases, the latter require an individual and autonomous legal determination, be it through the same judgment to which many individual applications are annexed. Before that, however, each of these applications has to go through individual assessment of the facts and legal aspects by a judicial formation of the Court. Otherwise the right to an individual application before the Court will be facing a serious challenge.

8. We agree that the Court is called upon to find appropriate judicial ways to ease the backlog problem that is causing serious delays in providing remedy to individual human rights violations. However, the Convention grants individuals the right of access to this Court (Article 34), which means that a properly submitted application must be the subject of a judicial decision (Article 34 also implies that individuals may send and the Court may receive applications, and once such applications have been received it is up to the Court to deal with them, except where the application does not satisfy the admissibility criteria, and cannot be dealt with, pursuant to Article 35). In the present case, the Court justifies such non-consideration by reference to its alleged earlier position regarding the functions of the pilot-judgment procedure[3]:

“The pilot-judgment procedure is designed to assist the Contracting States in fulfilling their role in the Convention system by resolving such problems at national level, thereby securing to all actual and potential victims of the systemic problem the Convention rights and freedoms as required by Article 1 of the Convention, offering to them more rapid redress and, at the same time, easing the burden on the Court which would otherwise have to take to judgment large numbers of applications similar in substance, at the expense of other meritorious cases (see, among many other authorities, Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35; Hutten‑Czapska (merits), cited above, §§ 231-234; Ivanov, cited above, § 95; and Wolkenberg and Others, cited above, § 34; see also paragraphs 156-161 above) (paragraph 201).”

9. The paragraphs quoted make no reference to the “burden on the Court”. The fact that a general legislative measure has been adopted and implemented, an award paid out and a friendly settlement reached, leading to a strike-out decision, which was the situation in the Broniowski friendly settlement case, cannot be a consideration in the present situation, where the Ukrainian authorities have neither adopted any general measure nor paid compensation to any of the applicants. In the present case, no solution has been provided to the problems at the national level securing to all actual and potential victims of the systemic problem the Convention rights and freedoms as required by Article 1 of the Convention and offering them swifter redress. The alleged conditions are, therefore, quite simply absent. We find it particularly troubling that such a denial of the right to individual application and to have a judgment or a decision on the basis of an individual assessment, granted by the Convention, was motivated by the bureaucratic reasons of “easing the burden on the Court.” While we accept that the Court has to deal with cases in pursuit of objective priorities, for example in order to prevent the systemic decay of human rights protection in a country, we cannot agree that the present applications and the underlying miseries are less meritorious than other cases. Who could explain to incapacitated Chernobyl victims that their decades’ long misery is less meritorious than the legal qualification of a single slap on the face of a young provocateur[4]? Can the Court, with a clear conscience, take responsibility for treating specific groups of potential victims of the non-enforcement of a pilot judgment differently from others?[5]

(ii) As a matter of the Convention system

10. Paragraph 141 of the judgment reads as follows: “at the heart of the present applications lies the division of competence established by the Convention between, on the one hand, the Court, whose function is to ‘ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto’ (Article 19 of the Convention) and, on the other, the Committee of Ministers, ‘which shall supervise [the] execution’ of the final judgments of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention)”.

11. On this point we note that the Committee of Ministers was not at all consulted with a view to specifying the relevant mechanisms and arrangements for transferring thousands of undecided applications to them. Moreover, at no stage were the parties to the present proceedings informed of the possibility of such a decision, and no question on this matter was put to them. They therefore could not comment on this crucially important policy issue, and no reference was made to the remaining 12,143 applicants whose fate was decided by the present judgment. Although the Court usually discusses matters of judicial policy with different stakeholders in order to find optimum acceptable solutions, the possibility of striking out follow-up cases if a pilot-judgment procedure has not attained its goal was never mentioned or raised. Regrettably, this does not necessarily point to constructive dialogue and division of powers between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.

12. Despite our doubts as to whether Ms Burmych and all the other 12,143 applicants have at all considered bringing their complaints of the division of competences between the Court and the Committee of Ministers, it could be accepted that the consequence of this judgment is exactly that. The judgment deals with theoretical issues of division of competence under the Convention system and not with the practical aspect of the applicants’ claims. This analysis is difficult to harmonise with the old maxim and fil conducteur of the Court’s case-law, to the effect that the Convention protects “practical and effective rights”[6]. That division and the increasing number of applications lie, to our opinion, at the root of the majority’s reasoning. Fundamentally for this reason, the majority has advocated reshaping the Convention system by inviting the Committee of Ministers into the process of the final determination of individual application submitted before the Court. So this judgment confirms the right to direct access to the Court but, via a new strike-out option, also introduces the right to direct exit of the individual applications from the Court to the Committee of Ministers.

13. Were the Court, albeit only in follow-up cases to a pilot procedure, to serve as filtering body for the Committee of Ministers, allowing the latter to decide on each and every case for a violation and for the just satisfaction to be afforded, with all due respect we would consider that as a major retrograde step for the Convention mechanism. It would mean transferring the determination of human rights claims from a judicial authority, as the Convention system requires, to a political body, albeit a collective one, namely the Committee of Ministers. The method of supervision of compliance with commitments under the Convention is then transformed from the judicial sphere to that of monitoring, and the outcome of the proceedings from binding judicial decision to a decision that notes, recalls and urges the national authorities to take measures[7].

14. We do not consider that to be in keeping with the aim and structure of the Convention system and with what the Court proclaims itself to be, a judicial body to which more than 800 million European citizens can apply. Following this judgment of the Court, it would appear that the claims of thousands of individuals wishing to complain of violations of the Convention which are consequent upon a structural problem in a given Contracting State will be determined and resolved by the Committee of Ministers instead. Burmych and the other applicants in today’s judgment have suffered exactly the same violation as in Ivanov and many other cases against Ukraine or other Contracting Parties. Why should they be treated procedurally differently and their claims have to wait sine die for a political monitoring mechanism of the domestic reforms, given that the Convention recognises them the very same rights? Is this compatible with the Convention? If the Court is to receive applications from anyone, including persons complaining of structural problems, on the basis of Article 35 of the Convention, is the purpose of this provision simply to allow the Court to transfer some of the applications to the Committee of Ministers for assessment?

15. The majority, in several paragraphs of the judgment, suggests that the transfer of all these cases to the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the general measures constitutes the appropriate approach to these cases[8]. If assessment by a political body nowadays constitutes appropriate relief under the Convention system and if Article 35 is to be understood as authorising the Committee of Ministers to deal with individual applications, this is a major retrograde step from the intentions of the drafters of Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 to the Convention, and of Article 19 of the Convention. It should be recalled that the old system of the Convention provided that the Committee of Ministers was one of the bodies deciding whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention. With this judgment, the majority of the Grand Chamber apparently agrees to move back to that system[9], where structural problems are concerned. This seems to be in clear contradiction with the changes introduced in 1998 by Protocol No. 11[10]. That Protocol explicitly abolished any competence on the part of the Committee of Ministers to decide on violations of the Convention, and retained only the Committee’s competence as to the execution of the judgments of the Court. With this judgment the Court invites the Committee of Ministers to re-enter the judicial mechanism through the window[11]. To replace the unique European judicial protection of individual human rights with the non-enforceable decisions of a political body (where the member State concerned is part of the decision-making process) results a radical diminution of human rights protection and weakens the authority of an independent and impartial Court.

16. This invitation is also in open conflict with the intention of the drafters of Protocol No. 14 of the Convention. It should be recalled that paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Report to this Protocol states that:

“10. At the same time – and this was one of the major challenges in preparing the present protocol – it was vital that reform should in no way affect what are rightly considered the principal and unique features of the Convention system. These are the judicial character of European supervision, and the principle that any person claiming to be the victim of a breach of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention may refer the matter to the Court (right of individual application).”

17. Paragraph 11 of the same report continues by perfectly summarising the fundamental features of the Convention system:

“11. Indeed, the Convention’s control system is unique: the Parties agree to subject themselves to international judicial supervision of their obligation to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. This control is exercised by the Court, which gives judgments on individual applications brought under Article 34 of the Convention and on state applications – which are extremely rare (1) – brought under Article 33. The Court’s judgments are binding on respondent Parties and their execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.”

18. Unfortunately, after this judgment the above excerpt from the Explanatory Report of Protocol 14 will lapse. Individual applications relating to systemic deficiencies will be sent to the Committee of Ministers which, by supervising the execution of an earlier judgment, will dispose of the current applications. Is this the new unique means of ensuring that, under “international judicial supervision”, the Convention rights and freedoms are available to everyone?

19. The judgment offers an understanding of the Convention system which makes it not at all surprising that Government Agents are extremely keen for the Court to deliver pilot judgments and to freeze or strike out all the remaining applications before the Court. In practice, the Governments seize control of thousands of cases brought against them before the Court and the entire philosophy of the Convention judicial supervision system is distorted.

20. If the drafters of Protocol No. 14 which modified the Convention mechanism to make it more effective had wanted, they would have conferred such competence on the Committee of Ministers. But they did not! It seems they were mindful of the uniqueness of the Convention’s control system – its purely judicial character. Instead, by introducing the provision of Article 46 § 4 into the Convention, Protocol 14 clearly offered the Committee of Ministers the possibility of helping with this problem via the competence to bring infringement proceedings before the Court against any State refusing to comply with a judgment. The Ukrainian Government has been failing to comply with Ivanov-type cases for 16 years, but no such proceedings are ever brought before the Court[12].

21. In our view, the Ivanov judgment was exactly the kind of case that Article 46 § 4 is speaking about. But owing to a failure on the part of the Committee of Ministers, the majority proceeded with their innovative policy. This move obviously upsets the division of tasks between the Court and the Committee of Ministers to which the judgment refers in paragraph 194.

22. In addition, we might bear in mind that the drafters and Contracting Parties of the Protocols to the Convention are actually the member States of the Council of Europe, which means, ironically, that the transfer of competences triggered by this judgment will take place against and in breach of the will of the Contracting States.

23. What is more, whilst the necessity of resorting to pilot proceedings in the Broniowski case was so obvious that it was adopted by a unanimous vote in Grand Chamber, the present dramatic change in the Court’s policy secured the support of only ten colleagues out of seventeen. Where the credibility of the Court is at stake, such a division is not appropriate.

24. More significantly, Protocol No. 14 has introduced the new provision of Article 28 § 1 (b) to the Convention for the very same purpose of dealing with repetitive applications on the merits. Its Explanatory Report clearly states that this extension to the competence of the three-judge committees was effected for that purpose, and paragraph 40 of the report reads as follows:

“The competence of the committees of three judges is extended to cover repetitive cases. They are empowered to rule, in a simplified procedure, not only on the admissibility but also on the merits of an application, if the underlying question in the case is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court.”[13]

It is curious that in this judgment the Court decides not to make use of the committee procedure in all these cases[14]?!

(iii) As a matter of individual fundamental human rights, individual right of petition before the Court and rule of law

25. Paragraph 161 of the judgment states the following:

“According to the rationale of the pilot judgment, therefore, the respondent State is required to eliminate the source of the violation for the future and to provide a remedy for the past prejudice suffered not only by the individual applicant(s) in the pilot case but also by all other victims of the same type of violation. The intention is that, under the umbrella of the general measures required of the respondent State, all the other victims are absorbed into the process of execution of the pilot judgment.”

26. This statement, which is also repeated in paragraph 166 of the judgment, seems to be the ratio decidendi of the majority in this judgment. It introduces the notion of the “absorption” of victims’ individual claims brought before the Court “into the process of execution of the pilot judgment”. This conception, the absorption of rights of some into the rights of others is, to our understanding, a major threat to the idea of individual fundamental human rights. What does it really mean? Are the rights of one individual who came to the Court first more important that the rights of others following him or her with the same claim? Does this suggest that the Court would deal only with “novel” claims, and the others have to “enjoy” the judgment given in favour of their precursors? So Burmych and 12,143 others simply have to hang their hopes on the fate of Ivanov judgment execution and should not apply on their own before the Court[15]? Or does it mean that the Court has introduced a new criteria under Article 37 § 1 (c) – the strike-out for reasons of “absorption”. This cannot be the philosophy of individual fundamental rights. No one’s rights can be absorbed by others’ rights, and even less so by the process of executing a judgment delivered in relation to others’ rights. The judges have the duty to consider each and every individual right claim on its own facts on its own merits and give a decision in relation to that claim[16]. This is a fortiori for judges of a Court established by a Convention protecting individual human rights. As put it by Professor Donald H. Regan in relation to the right of free speech:

“To say that there is a right of free speech is to say that for each individual subject, there is a reason for protecting that subject in his desire to speak. If there is a reason for protecting each individual subject in his desire to speak, then it is irrational (absent some citation of countervailing reasons) to protect a thousand subjects and ignore the other nine thousand. Indeed, it would be irrational to protect nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine and ignore the other one.”

27. The very same applies to all individual rights recognised by the Convention. This understanding applies equally to the right to individual petition under Articles 34, 35 and 37 of the Convention. Otherwise the true meaning of the concept of individual human rights and the idea of the right to individual petition before a judicial body would be gravely endangered. The “absorption” invention may look good for superficial statistical considerations, but it is not grounds for denial of rights. Moreover, it would be unfortunate if it were true that this Court’s caseload is preventing it from settling other meritorious cases. We must not forget that applicants come to Strasbourg after they have exhausted all remedies in terms of having their rights recognised, in order to secure a solution to their personal case and obtain a judicial decision on their individual claim. The Court should not fail to give such answer – that, after all, is its raison d’être.

28. This judgment sends out a very off-putting message to all potential applicants to the Court. The Court is telling them that if a previous applicant has complained in Strasbourg on the same issue and the Court found a violation through a pilot judgment, and if a respondent State failed to remedy a structural problem, for assessing the remaining and future applicants only a strike-out by the Court and a transfer to the Committee of Ministers is on the menu. Why then should those applicants ever come to Strasbourg?

29. This judgment is also sending out an extremely discouraging message to the national judges, those in the frontline of guaranteeing the implementation of Convention rights. This Court is constantly requiring and assessing respect for Article 6 and other Articles of the Convention rights by the national judges. The enforcement of domestic decisions complying with Convention standards is critical to the success of the Convention system. However, when their judgments are not executed for years on end, and the Court transfers them to a political supervisory body, the Committee of Ministers, the struggle of national judges to apply Convention standards at home finds no judicial support in Strasbourg. They will be right to think that their judgments are not going to be executed for years after their delivery, and that in any case the Governments will be the masters of the Convention human rights game. The Court should encourage national judges and not undermine the dialogue with them and their efforts to comply with the Convention.

30. Today’s judgment allows for thousands of applications and potential violations to wait in a legal limbo for decisions given in their favour to be executed. In some cases those decisions represent vital interests. Three of the five applicants concerned by our judgment are victims of the Chernobyl disaster. They have obtained, under decisions from the Ukrainian Courts, awards in compensation for the dreadful events of which they were the victims and the continuing dangerous effects of the disaster. We tell them to wait, despite the fact that they have had their legal rights recognised by law and by the courts. How are these cases any different from those involving violations of Article 2[17], Article 6[18] or Article 8[19] decided in Strasbourg for similar reasons? Instead of encouraging and supporting the work done by the national judges in applying Articles 2, 6 and 8 Convention rights, by giving this decision the Court marks their decisions as dead letters for years, even when they reach Strasbourg.

31. Prior to the present judgment, thousands of applicants received judgments which resulted in a clear State obligation to award damages (just satisfaction). The majority has now denied the same practical remedy to 12,143 applicants and others in a similar position, leaving them in limbo. The emerging “transfer” does not guarantee that applicants will benefit from a useful, enforceable remedy, because a strike-out is a decision, but the Committee of Ministers supervises only the execution of final judgments and friendly settlements, pursuant to Article 46 (2)[20]. Moreover, it is absolutely unclear what is to be reviewed. There is no guidance as to the just satisfaction to be provided individually for applicants in different situations or as to what would be a satisfactory general solution by future legislation which may or may not be enforced. The Court simply has omitted to reflect on the possible future of such cases, the Committee of Ministers always looks for guidance in the judgments/decisions of the Court which it can rely on while supervising the execution, but with this case there is no plan for anyone, there seems to be no plausible solution, and in order to release itself from this burden the Court simply delegates the quest for a solution elsewhere. However, such questions can only be determined through judicial channels, and there is no guarantee for such judicial evaluation by way of deciding on individual applications. It is particularly troubling that among the present applicants, and most likely among those applications which were not seen by a judge, there are many victims of the Chernobyl disaster and other vulnerable persons. We refrain from describing the kind of additional suffering the perpetuation of their misery will cause. We cannot agree with the conclusion that respect for human rights does not require the continued examination of the present case.

32. The present solution follows a trend whereby the Court discontinues the award of just satisfaction in repetitive cases where the State has failed to comply with the Court’s judgment[21]. The present solution encourages member States not to introduce general measures where a structural problem has been found to exist. It is thus, in fact, rewarding non‑compliance.

33. The majority claims that in this case there is no important issue that has not already been clarified (see paragraph 205). However, the applicants raised the issue of inflation: they claim that even the lump sum award of 2,000 euros will not cover the long term loss. This claim itself raises an issue that has not been resolved, or at least the judgment does not refer to any solution. Instead the Court did not consider the matter at all. This matter cannot be considered resolved as required by Article 37 (1) b.

(iv) As a matter of national context

34. We do not think that the judgment takes due account of Ukrainian realities. It does refer to the successful examples of pilot judgments in Broniowski[22], Hutten-Czapska[23] and a few others[24]. However, in our opinion, the majority, albeit recognising that the Ivanov pilot judgment is a failure[25], agrees to transfer the current applications (5+12,143) to that procedure for executing the pilot judgment, which has been failing for 16 years now[26].

35. In this respect we cannot but note that the applicants in the said 12,143 cases will not benefit at the national level from the enforcement mechanism envisaged by domestic law for the Court’s judgments and decisions: as paragraph 100 makes clear, according to the Act of 16 October 2006, enforceable decisions of this Court mean final judgments, final judgments on just satisfaction, judgments/decisions on a friendly settlement, judgments/decisions on approving a unilateral declaration in a case against Ukraine. Nothing which the Committee of Ministers could indicate in respect of these 12,143 applications appears to be enforceable.

36. Whilst the idea of this judgment is to treat “the present case and all similar 12,143 cases pending before the Court, as well as any similar future cases to be submitted to it” as “part and parcel of the process of execution of the pilot judgment” (see paragraph 198), in practice that means that these applicants will merely share the fate of other 120,000 holders of unenforced judicial decisions in Ukraine (see paragraph 126) who had not applied to Strasbourg. The Court has thus recused itself in respect of those cases.

37. We also fail to understand any practical effect of the present judgment. The majority believes that nothing further can be gained by the repetition of similar judgments (see paragraph 174). Nevertheless, considering the possibility of restoring these applications to the list of cases under Article 37 § 2, the majority envisages “that it may be appropriate to reassess the situation within two years of the delivery of the present judgment” (see paragraph 223). But what can be gained by transferring all these cases to the Committee of Ministers for two years and then, most probably, taking them back? This will only postpone the so-called burden of the Court rather than relieving it. Again, we consider that no applicant can ever be seen as a burden to a Court which is duty-bound to hear and determine individual applications. Against the background of sixteen years of fruitless efforts to find a tangible solution to the structural problem at issue, it would not appear realistic to think that such a solution can be found within the said two years. This administrative transfer will also place a burden on the Court’s resources comparable to that relating to the examination of repetitive cases.

38. If this judgment is to be understood as an attempt to encourage the competent Ukrainian authorities to step up their efforts to solve the problem, this is being done at the expense and to the detriment of 12,143 applicants who had applied to this Court to restore their breached rights.

(v) Conclusion

39. To our regret, we must emphasise that although lowering the number of cases pending before the Court might make the administrative situation of the institution look brighter, this does not mean that the human rights situation in Europe is any better. Au contraire! The Court was set up specifically to respond to these violations as an independent judicial body, and not to concentrate on statistics. The judicial duty to decide individual cases should be expressed with more force when the situation of the rule of law and execution of thousands of final judgments in a member country, namely Ukraine, is so problematic. By failing to address this issue the Court is shooting itself in the foot – the rule of law in member States. Nor could a failure to deal with these fundamental rights cases be classified under judicial economy, judicial efficiency, or the Brighton philosophy. This is simply momentary judicial convenience.

40. When this Court adopted its first pilot judgment in the famous Broniowski case cited above, our former colleague Judge Zupancić, concurring with the Grand Chamber, mentioned that the novel approach undertaken by it “has nothing to do with the Court’s caseload. It has, however, everything to do with justice.” In the present case, unfortunately, the reverse holds.

41. This judgment is without legal basis in the Convention, it throws thousands of desperate people into a legal limbo and undermines the protection of human rights of the Convention - we most emphatically dissent.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

I had the opportunity to express the main reasons for my disagreement in a joint opinion.

However, I would like to explain my vote in operative point 3. I voted here with the majority, given that the majority joined this case with another 12,143 or so applications listed in Appendix I and II. (I have no way of knowing how many cases we are talking about). Once the majority decided to join these cases (a decision to which I object), all these cases are technically in front of us, and therefore I had to conclude that these cases are dealt in compliance with the obligation deriving from the Ivanov pilot judgment. This cryptic statement only means that they have to be decided in compliance with that judgment.

APPENDIX I

App. No

Case Name

Date Of Intro

Applicant

Representative

12139/03

Struchkova v. Ukraine

10/03/2003

Struchkova Raisa Ivanovna

16816/04

Timonin and Lugovskoy v. Ukraine

15/04/2004

Timonin Nikolay Alekseyevich
Lugovskoy Viktor Yefemovich

36116/05

Sodol v. Ukraine

24/09/2005

Sodol Yanina Vladislavovna

40714/05

Tatarova v. Ukraine

31/10/2005

Tatarova Irina Alekseyevna

4304/06

Yerokhina v. Ukraine

10/01/2006

Yerokhina Zhanna Ivanovna

18529/06

Glushko v. Ukraine

27/04/2006

Glushko Eduard Grigoryevich

27702/06

Litovchenko v. Ukraine

20/06/2006

Litovchenko Sergey Nikolayevich

29066/06

Lemesh v. Ukraine

05/07/2006

Lemesh Antonina Anatolyevna

42573/06

Maslova v. Ukraine

10/10/2006

Maslova Iryna Vasylivna

42997/06

Snezhnyanskhimmash, vat v. Ukraine

28/09/2006

Snezhnyanskhimmash,vat

3840/07

Boguslavskiy v. Ukraine

13/12/2006

Boguslavskiy Oleg Petrovich

5049/07

Chernov v. Ukraine

30/12/2006

Chernov Sergiy Ivanovych

6757/07

Sidorov v. Ukraine

17/01/2007

Sidorov Valeriy Yegorovych

50974/07

Fukleva v. Ukraine

23/10/2007

Fukleva Tetyana Andriyivna

2304/08

Tyutyun v. Ukraine

29/12/2007

Tyutyun Mykhaylo Ivanovych

3942/08

Solomina v. Ukraine

12/01/2008

Solomina Larysa Leonidivna

9841/08

Yakovlev v. Ukraine

11/02/2008

Yakovlev Kostyantyn Ivanovych

11212/08

Samoylenko v. Ukraine

25/02/2008

Samoylenko Stanislava Sygizmundivna

19775/08

Alpatova v. Ukraine

08/04/2008

Alpatova Valentyna Dmytrivna

23484/08

Rakhubovskyy v. Ukraine

07/05/2008

Rakhubovskyy Mykola Terentiyovych

24746/08

Merefyanska Sto, Organizatsiya Orendariv v. Ukraine

13/05/2008

Merefyanska Sto, Organizatsiya Orendariv

Mukanova Aygul Sansyzbayevna

28457/08

Timoshenko v. Ukraine

03/06/2008

Timoshenko Gennadiy Vasilyevich

Kozlov Sergey Gennadyevich

28465/08

Kucherenko v. Ukraine

03/06/2008

Kucherenko Aleksandr Pavlovich

Kozlov Sergey Gennadyevich

29591/08

Dneprotekhkontrakt v. Ukraine

07/06/2008

Dneprotekhkontrakt

35543/08

Kryukov v. Ukraine

14/07/2008

Kryukov Nikolay Egorovich

43134/08

Gryshko v. Ukraine

26/08/2008

Gryshko Viktor Sergiyovych

44777/08

Glushko v. Ukraine

20/08/2008

Glushko Eduard Grigoryevich

45460/08

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

11/09/2008

Shevchenko Vitaliy Petrovych

48272/08

Safonov v. Ukraine

26/09/2008

Safonov Yuriy Fedorovich

53844/08

Barabash v. Ukraine

25/10/2008

Barabash Valentina Petrovna

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

54128/08

Lisanets and Babich v. Ukraine

19/10/2008

Lisanets Valentina Nikolayevna
Babich Darya Anatolyevna

57899/08

Koval v. Ukraine

12/09/2008

Koval Vasyl Vasylyovych

8601/09

Mishchenko v. Ukraine

27/01/2009

Mishchenko Nina Kuzminichna

12758/09

Privala v. Ukraine

16/02/2009

Privala Aleksandr Fedorovich

15059/09

Bondarev v. Ukraine

18/03/2009

Bondarev Viktor Nikolayevich

23378/09

Krympobutradiotekhnika, Vat v. Ukraine

14/04/2009

Krympobutradiotekhnika, Vat

30053/09

Monada, Pp v. Ukraine

18/05/2009

Monada, Pp

32928/09

Kosharna v. Ukraine

04/06/2009

Kosharna Lidiya Ivanivna

40735/09

Gopkalo v. Ukraine

20/07/2009

Gopkalo Maya Ivanovna

41890/09

Panarin v. Ukraine

23/07/2009

Panarin Arkadiy Stepanovych

Sarnyak Volodymyr Stanislavovych

48637/09

Zabolotnyy v. Ukraine

03/09/2009

Zabolotnyy Valeriy Nikolayevich

50917/09

Bulgachenko v. Ukraine

08/09/2009

Bulgachenko Vladimir Aleksandrovich

Glushko Eduard Grigoryevich

59979/09

Kechin v. Ukraine

03/11/2009

Kechin Ivan Anatolyevich

62252/09

Belov v. Ukraine

12/11/2009

Belov Valeriy Yuriyovych

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

65221/09

Vasylenko v. Ukraine

30/11/2009

Vasylenko Sergiy Mykolayovych

65232/09

Fedorchenko v. Ukraine

01/12/2009

Fedorchenko Petro Ivanovych

66096/09

Malinovska v. Ukraine

26/11/2009

Malinovska Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna

2679/10

Chernozhukov v. Ukraine

15/12/2009

Chernozhukov Ivan Fedorovych

13949/10

Kutsevychi v. Ukraine

15/11/2007

Kutsevych Vitaliy Vasylyovych
Kutsevych Lidiya Andriyivna

16479/10

Myroshnychenko v. Ukraine

03/03/2010

Myroshnychenko Oleksiy Borysovych

19180/10

Marchenko v. Ukraine

20/03/2010

Marchenko Yuliya Nikolayevna

24790/10

Fomenko v. Ukraine

29/03/2010

Fomenko Irina Petrovna

33419/10

Sirotin v. Ukraine

08/11/2010

Sirotin Aleksandr Illarionovich

35414/10

Lypkovska v. Ukraine

14/06/2010

Lypkovska Nataliya Mykolayivna

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

41001/10

Vladimir Baranov and Alla Baranova v. Ukraine

03/07/2010

Baranov Vladimir Ivanovich
Baranova Alla Aleksandrovna

45644/10

Nikitin v. Ukraine

02/08/2010

Nikitin Viktor Ivanovych

47028/10

Kuzub v. Ukraine

29/07/2010

Kuzub Mykola Ivanovych

55215/10

Savchenko v. Ukraine

04/09/2010

Savchenko Viktor Mykolayovych

64327/10

Baydetskyy v. Ukraine

18/09/2010

Baydetskyy Viktor Yevgenovych

64855/10

Korzhikov (xiv) v. Ukraine

14/10/2010

Korzhikov Petr Mikhaylovich

68165/10

Kashyriny v. Ukraine

03/11/2010

Kashyrin Anatoliy Andriyovych
Kashyrina Valentyna Grygorivna

68710/10

Reznik v. Ukraine

05/11/2010

Reznik Ivan Ivanovych

71990/10

Ryshkov v. Ukraine

24/11/2010

Ryshkov Yuriy Vadimovich

1444/11

Shmatkov v. Ukraine

23/12/2010

Shmatkov Mikhail Lavrentyevich

18440/11

Tsyganyuk v. Ukraine

07/03/2011

Tsyganyuk Sergiy Antonovych

23726/11

Yakovenko v. Ukraine

06/04/2011

Yakovenko Viktor Ivanovich

24155/11

Vygovskyy v. Ukraine

24/02/2011

Vygovskyy Mykola Yakovych

24202/11

Nikolay Zakharov v. Ukraine

26/02/2011

Zakharov Mykola Pavlovych

26777/11

Bezotochnaya v. Ukraine

16/04/2011

Bezotochnaya Alla Yevgenyevna

33173/11

New World Grain Ukraine, Tov v. Ukraine

18/05/2011

New World Grain Ukraine, Tov

Sluch Oleksiy Vasylyovych

33496/11

Demidova v. Ukraine

11/05/2011

Demidova Zinaida Romanovna

35503/11

Kalyuga v. Ukraine

27/05/2011

Kalyuga Oleksandr Grygorovych

37465/11

Plenkova v. Ukraine

04/06/2011

Plenkova Lidiya Ivanivna

37769/11

Grabovenko v. Ukraine

04/06/2011

Grabovenko Oleksiy Semenovych

37979/11

Polishchuk v. Ukraine

14/06/2011

Polishchuk Valeriy Ivanovich

39275/11

Sorokopud v. Ukraine

09/05/2011

Sorokopud Vera Yakovlevna
Sorokopud Vasiliy Ivanovich

48288/11

Golub v. Ukraine

24/07/2011

Golub Lyudmila Vladimirovna

Pogasiy Igor Petrovich

50499/11

Tsapenko v. Ukraine

04/08/2011

Tsapenko Valentyn Gavrylovych

50501/11

Chervinskyy v. Ukraine

04/08/2011

Chervinskyy Anatoliy Dmytrovych

50536/11

Tereshchenko v. Ukraine

04/08/2011

Tereshchenko Anatoliy Kostyantynovych

54178/11

Kucher v. Ukraine

12/07/2011

Kucher Valentyna Mykolayivna

55789/11

Kozhemyako v. Ukraine

11/08/2011

Kozhemyako Oleksandr Fedorovych

57622/11

Mozgova v. Ukraine

17/08/2011

Mozgova Nina Petrivna

57750/11

Biryukov and Others v. Ukraine

02/09/2011

Biryukov Ivan Mykhaylovych
Biryukova Svitlana Ivanivna
Biryukova Lyudmyla Mykolayivna

63425/11

Sydorenko v. Ukraine

16/09/2011

Sydorenko Ivan Mykolayovych

63511/11

Danylyuk v. Ukraine

28/09/2011

Danylyuk Lyudmyla Mykolayivna

64749/11

Strebkov v. Ukraine

06/10/2011

Strebkov Yuriy Oleksiyovych

64894/11

Trans European Limited v. Ukraine

12/10/2011

Trans European Limited

Raenok Vitalii Anatoliyovych

66365/11

Bakhmet v. Ukraine

03/08/2011

Bakhmet Sergiy Ivanovych

66603/11

Shytikov v. Ukraine

02/06/2011

Shytikov Oleg Vasylyovych

66641/11

Rayvakhivska v. Ukraine

14/10/2011

Rayvakhivska Lyudmyla Viktorivna

72596/11

Shvets v. Ukraine

17/11/2011

Shvets Vyacheslav Mykolayovych

74303/11

Gavrylovskyy v. Ukraine

25/11/2011

Gavrylovskyy Valeriy Oleksandrovych

74835/11

Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine

10/10/2011

Tserkva Sela Sosulivka

Avdeyenko Vladislav Valeriyovych

19/12

Ivanov v. Ukraine

07/12/2011

Ivanov Volodymyr Ivanovych

1713/12

Stakhnyuk v. Ukraine

29/11/2011

Stakhnyuk Stepan Dmytrovych

1762/12

Gavrylovskyy v. Ukraine

14/12/2011

Gavrylovskyy Mykola Vasylyovych

3725/12

Simatova v. Ukraine

05/01/2012

Simatova Tamara Mykhaylivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

3977/12

Dudnichenko v. Ukraine

05/01/2012

Dudnichenko Lyudmyla Kostyantynivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

4753/12

Chornovol v. Ukraine

12/01/2012

Chornovol Borys Grygorovych

4885/12

Korshunova v. Ukraine

05/01/2012

Korshunova Tetyana Tomosivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

5108/12

Zaporozhets v. Ukraine

05/01/2012

Zaporozhets Larysa Yevgeniyivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

6456/12

Antonyuk v. Ukraine

20/01/2012

Antonyuk Yuriy Gavrylovych

7000/12

Fesyuk v. Ukraine

17/01/2012

Fesyuk Igor Dmytrovych

Guras Oleksiy Stepanovych

7661/12

Kniginitskyy v. Ukraine

22/01/2012

Kniginitskyy Vasyl Stepanovych

7662/12

Parshenko v. Ukraine

19/01/2012

Parshenko Grygoriy Mykhaylovych

8852/12

Skobelskyy v. Ukraine

03/02/2012

Skobelskyy Olesandr Valentynovych

12963/12

Melenivska v. Ukraine

14/02/2012

Melenivska Viktoriya Sergiyivna

13200/12

Ursalenko v. Ukraine

23/02/2012

Ursalenko Olena Veniaminivna

16377/12

Boyko v. Ukraine

13/03/2012

Boyko Tetyana Borysivna

16605/12

Kirsanova v. Ukraine

10/02/2012

Kirsanova Nina Mykolayivna

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

16946/12

Sayevskyy v. Ukraine

14/03/2012

Sayevskyy Vasyl Sergiyovych

17282/12

Kozachek v. Ukraine

14/01/2012

Kozachek Viktor Dmytrovych

20274/12

Syden v. Ukraine

23/03/2012

Syden Anatoliy Oleksiyovych

21950/12

Nor v. Ukraine

04/04/2012

Nor Petro Ivanovych

21981/12

Ivanov v. Ukraine

04/04/2012

Ivanov Oleksandr Vasylyovych

22407/12

Yegorov v. Ukraine

25/03/2012

Yegorov Aleksandr Alekseyevich

22796/12

Kornet v. Ukraine

07/04/2012

Kornet Oleksandr Anatoliyovych

25392/12

Spitsyn v. Ukraine

17/04/2012

Spitsyn Nikolay Nikolayevich

25529/12

Tolkach v. Ukraine

19/04/2012

Tolkach Oleg Mykolayovych

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

27045/12

Vakulenko v. Ukraine

27/04/2012

Vakulenko Anatoliy Kostyantynovych

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

27152/12

Kostyuchenko v. Ukraine

23/04/2012

Kostyuchenko Viktor Adamovich

27228/12

Tytarenko v. Ukraine

24/04/2012

Tytarenko Nadiya Mykolayivna

27722/12

Savchenko v. Ukraine

25/04/2012

Savchenko Valentyna Vasylivna

27885/12

Buchko v. Ukraine

20/04/2012

Buchko Vladimir Ivanovich

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

28181/12

Lyenok v. Ukraine

26/04/2012

Lyenok Grygoriy Mykolayovych

28244/12

Voznyuk v. Ukraine

25/04/2012

Voznyuk Mariya Petrivna

28249/12

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

04/04/2012

Kovalenko Nataliya Saveliyivna

28365/12

Ravlyuk v. Ukraine

04/05/2012

Ravlyuk Ivan Vasylyovych

28455/12

Vasylkivska v. Ukraine

25/04/2012

Vasylkivska Yevdokiya Gordiyivna

28514/12

Velychko v. Ukraine

04/04/2012

Velychko Viktor Mykolayovych

28766/12

Maslov v. Ukraine

19/03/2012

Maslov Volodymyr Ivanovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

28783/12

Maslova v. Ukraine

19/03/2012

Maslova Svitlana Ivanivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

29388/12

Pinus v. Ukraine

14/03/2012

Pinus Nina Ivanivna

31300/12

Kravchinskiy v. Ukraine

25/05/2012

Kravchinskiy Valeriy Naumovich

35124/12

Glushchenko v. Ukraine

24/05/2012

Glushchenko Nikolay Grigoryevich

35654/12

Tsybik v. Ukraine

29/05/2012

Tsybik Viktor Anatolyevich

37222/12

Kozyar v. Ukraine

06/06/2012

Kozyar Mykhaylo Dorofiyovych

Romanishyn Oleg Oleksandrovych

37224/12

Raspopin v. Ukraine

08/06/2012

Raspopin Sergiy Lvovych

37502/12

Yatsyna v. Ukraine

02/08/2012

Yatsyna Yevgen Volodymyrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

40348/12

Edelshteyn v. Ukraine

13/06/2012

Edelshteyn Volodymyr Ivanovych

41718/12

Ivanova v. Ukraine

20/06/2012

Ivanova Olga Volodymyrivna

42334/12

Kobylynskyy v. Ukraine

25/06/2012

Kobylynskyy Petro Stepanovych

43168/12

Pogorelov v. Ukraine

14/06/2012

Pogorelov Viktor Vladimirovich

Pogorelov Dmitriy Viktorovich

43634/12

Makarov v. Ukraine

02/07/2012

Makarov Oleg Viktorovych

43785/12

Balashkevych v. Ukraine

07/07/2012

Balashkevych Sergiy Anatoliyovych

43789/12

Sinelnyk v. Ukraine

18/04/2012

Sinelnyk Viktor Ivanovych

43877/12

Savicheva v. Ukraine

02/07/2012

Savicheva Ganna Kyrylivna

43880/12

Servinska v. Ukraine

03/07/2012

Servinska Tamara Lavrivna

44032/12

Kotsyk v. Ukraine

03/07/2012

Kotsyk Mykola Fedorovych

44300/12

Bondarchuk v. Ukraine

10/07/2012

Bondarchuk Lyubov Oleksiyivna

44352/12

Nikiforova v. Ukraine

06/07/2012

Nikiforova Valentyna Mykolayivna

44362/12

Nikiforov v. Ukraine

06/07/2012

Nikiforov Roman Oleksiyovych

44367/12

Nikiforov v. Ukraine

06/07/2012

Nikiforov Igor Oleksiyovych

44536/12

Khodun v. Ukraine

10/07/2012

Khodun Lyubov Stepanivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

44904/12

Kompaniya Ukrpromservis, Pp v. Ukraine

10/07/2012

Kompaniya Ukrpromservis, Pp

Styeksova Lyubov Sergiyivna

45781/12

Zadorozhna v. Ukraine

18/07/2012

Zadorozhna Nina Vasylivna

46462/12

Petrenko v. Ukraine

11/07/2012

Petrenko Nina Viktorivna

46477/12

Otryshko v. Ukraine

11/07/2012

Otryshko Oleg Anatoliyovych

46875/12

Sikaylo v. Ukraine

13/07/2012

Sikaylo Ganna Yosypivna

47155/12

Levchenko v. Ukraine

19/07/2012

Levchenko Valentyna Petrivna

47870/12

Kuptsiv v. Ukraine

17/07/2012

Kuptsiv Viktor Yevstakhiyovych

47936/12

Railko v. Ukraine

18/07/2012

Railko Alla Ivanivna

47959/12

Kurochenko v. Ukraine

25/06/2012

Kurochenko Olga Mykolayivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

48389/12

Somov v. Ukraine

19/07/2012

Somov Yuriy Oleksandrovych

48444/12

Zibrov v. Ukraine

16/07/2012

Zibrov Valentyn Volodymrovych

48735/12

Pidoprygora v. Ukraine

27/07/2012

Pidoprygora Volodymyr Grygorovych

Davydko Igor Anatoliyovych

49511/12

Karlash v. Ukraine

16/07/2012

Karlash Sergiy Volodymyrovych

49640/12

Gnylytskyy v. Ukraine

24/07/2012

Gnylytskyy Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

50090/12

Olinchuk v. Ukraine

30/07/2012

Olinchuk Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych

50760/12

Yurevich v. Ukraine

04/08/2012

Yurevich Viktor Vasilyevich

50767/12

Yurevich v. Ukraine

04/08/2012

Yurevich Igor Viktorovich

51531/12

Tsesar v. Ukraine

09/07/2012

Tsesar Leonid Viktorovych

51803/12

Kulchytska v. Ukraine

03/08/2012

Kulchytska Valentyna Dmytrivna

51810/12

Volkivska v. Ukraine

03/08/2012

Volkivska Svitlana Mykolayivna

52418/12

Artemenko v. Ukraine

07/08/2012

Artemenko Sergiy Fedorovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

52660/12

Kyrylenko v. Ukraine

03/08/2012

Kyrylenko Viktor Vasylyovych

53127/12

Kochynskyy v. Ukraine

27/07/2012

Kochynskyy Igor Viktorovych

54819/12

Atp-16351, Pat v. Ukraine

07/08/2012

Atp-16351, Pat

54966/12

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

16/08/2012

Nevmerzhytska Veronika Volodymyrivna

55988/12

Khvorost v. Ukraine

17/08/2012

Khvorost Natalya Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

52545/12

Pisna v. Ukraine

14/08/2012

Pisna Vira Andriyivna

56995/12

Kryachok v. Ukraine

16/08/2012

Kryachok Mykola Ivanovych

52571/12

Bubyakin v. Ukraine

08/08/2012

Bubyakin Mikhail Grigoryevich

57019/12

Chernega v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Chernega Aleksandr Ivanovich

57334/12

Bondar v. Ukraine

25/08/2012

Bondar Oleksandr Vasylyovych

58090/12

Gutsan v. Ukraine

01/09/2012

Gutsan Terentiy Afanasyevich

58871/12

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

28/02/2012

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

58880/12

Gubatenko v. Ukraine

27/08/2012

Gubatenko Lidiya Oleksandrivna

58905/12

Demidova v. Ukraine

11/08/2012

Demidova Olena Musiyivna

59959/12

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Bondarenko Zoya Mikhaylovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59963/12

Gannochenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Gannochenko Viktoriya Vladimirovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59964/12

Goncharova v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Goncharova Irina Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59965/12

Goncharova v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Goncharova Lidiya Mikhaylovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59966/12

Gorbasenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Gorbasenko Lyudmyla Oleksiyivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59971/12

Grom v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Grom Tetyana Mykolayivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59975/12

Danilchenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Danilchenko Yelena Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59978/12

Ivanenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Ivanenko Kateryna Ivanivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59979/12

Zhizhchenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Zhizhchenko Lyudmila Mikhaylovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59980/12

Zemlyanskaya v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Zemlyanskaya Anna Viktorovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59981/12

Inshina v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Inshina Ganna Fedorovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59982/12

Karpenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Karpenko Viktor Ivanovich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59984/12

Karpenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Karpenko Tatyana Anatolyevna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59988/12

Kovaleva v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kovaleva Lyubov Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59989/12

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kovalenko Nelya Ivanivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59990/12

Kolesnik v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kolesnik Leonid Grigoryevich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59993/12

Kopylenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kopylenko Irina Aleksandrovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

59999/12

Kuchira v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kuchira Alla Anatolyevna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60001/12

Kushnareva v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Kushnaryova Zoya Oleksiyivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60003/12

Litvinenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Litvinenko Galina Petrovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60007/12

Litvinenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Litvinenko Vyacheslav Grigoryevich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60010/12

Malych v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Malych Mykola Mykolayovych

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60011/12

Martynenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Martynenko Aleksandr Viktorovich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60014/12

Minasyan v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Minasyan Viktoriya Borysivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60015/12

Miroshnichenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Myroshnychenko Maya Mykolayivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60016/12

Nedybalyuk v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Nedybalyuk Irina Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60019/12

Obolenskiy v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Obolenskiy Anatoliy Ivanovich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60022/12

Obolenskiy v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Obolenskiy Gennadiy Anatolyevich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60023/12

Pereloma v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Pereloma Olena Kostyantynivna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60025/12

Perepelitsa v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Perepelitsa Vladimir Filippovich

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60027/12

Radzetskaya v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Radzetskaya Tatyana Vasilyevna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60034/12

Sidorenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Sidorenko Tatyana Mikhaylovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60038/12

Tarasenko v. Ukraine

22/08/2012

Tarasenko Lyudmila Ivanovna

Rudenko Antonina Afanasyevna

60053/12

Yudin v. Ukraine

03/09/2012

Yudin Oleksandr Mykhaylovych

60076/12

Mezin v. Ukraine

06/09/2012

Mezin Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych

60145/12

Kanishev v. Ukraine

23/06/2012

Kanishev Yuriy Vladimirovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

60501/12

Pashynskyy v. Ukraine

10/08/2012

Pashynskyy Sergiy Ivanovych

61078/12

Zhuk v. Ukraine

08/09/2012

Zhuk Olga Trokhymivna

61094/12

Borisova v. Ukraine

14/09/2012

Borisova Valentina Ivanovna

61215/12

Stepanchuk v. Ukraine

01/09/2012

Stepanchuk Lyudmyla Petrivna

61266/12

Karmazin v. Ukraine

14/09/2012

Karmazin Petro Ivanovych

61377/12

Ivanov v. Ukraine

21/07/2011

Ivanov Yuriy Konstantinovich

61629/12

Lukanova v. Ukraine

10/09/2012

Lukanova Tatyana Mikhaylovna

61852/12

Lavrenchuk v. Ukraine

11/09/2012

Lavrenchuk Petro Maksymovych

61857/12

Skufin v. Ukraine

11/09/2012

Skufin Viktor Mikhaylovich

61873/12

Khirsa v. Ukraine

23/07/2012

Khirsa Arkadiy Grygorovych

62056/12

Miroshnyk v. Ukraine

17/09/2012

Miroshnyk Vasyl Ivanovych

62345/12

Prykhodko v. Ukraine

21/09/2012

Prykhodko Yuriy Kharytonovych

62425/12

Korniychuk v. Ukraine

25/09/2012

Korniychuk Tetyana Volodymyrivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

62797/12

Demchenko v. Ukraine

19/09/2012

Demchenko Volodymyr Oleksiyovych

63052/12

Volyanyk v. Ukraine

10/07/2012

Volyanyk Taisiya Demydivna

63132/12

Semeniy v. Ukraine

17/09/2012

Semeniy Vasyl Oleksandrovych

63305/12

Solganyuk v. Ukraine

07/09/2012

Solganyuk Vladimir Silvestrovich

63466/12

Gurkivska v. Ukraine

19/09/2012

Gurkivska Zinayida Antonivna

63524/12

Gorchevska v. Ukraine

19/09/2012

Gorchevska Zoya Mykolayivna

63644/12

Snurnitsyn v. Ukraine

22/09/2012

Snurnitsyn Valeriy Yegorovych

64111/12

Maksimovich v. Ukraine

21/10/2012

Maksimovich Vladimir Yevgenyevich

64160/12

Ivanko v. Ukraine

19/09/2012

Ivanko Mariya Panteleyivna

64569/12

Yegorova v. Ukraine

17/09/2012

Yegorova Yevgeniya Ivanovna

64663/12

Ovcharova v. Ukraine

02/10/2012

Ovcharova Larysa Stanislavivna

64791/12

Shvab v. Ukraine

20/09/2012

Shvab Ivan Oleksiyovych

64892/12

Matukhno v. Ukraine

28/09/2012

Matukhno Valeriy Ivanovych

64944/12

Romanova v. Ukraine

20/09/2012

Romanova Nataliya Vasylivna

65318/12

Shvab v. Ukraine

20/09/2012

Shvab Valentyna Ivanivna

65670/12

Myronchuk v. Ukraine

02/10/2012

Myronchuk Volodymyr Stepanovych

65725/12

Bovsunivskyy v. Ukraine

06/10/2012

Bovsunivskyy Mykola Mykolayovych

65749/12

Stogodyuk v. Ukraine

06/10/2012

Stogodyuk Alla Mykolayivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

65792/12

Zheronkin v. Ukraine

03/10/2012

Zheronkin Sergey Ivanovich

65855/12

Myronenko v. Ukraine

05/10/2012

Myronenko Sergiy Oleksiyovych

66312/12

Grabovenko v. Ukraine

02/10/2012

Grabovenko Volodymyr Oleksandrovych

66451/12

Cheverda v. Ukraine

06/10/2012

Cheverda Volodymyr Ivanovych

66535/12

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

03/10/2012

Kovalchuk Oksana Petrovna

67058/12

Krasnokutskiy v. Ukraine

08/10/2012

Krasnokutskiy Yuriy Yevgenyevich

67110/12

Komar v. Ukraine

06/10/2012

Komar Nykon Volodymyrovych

67301/12

Momotok v. Ukraine

09/10/2012

Momotok Oleksiy Volodymyrovych

67484/12

Koynash v. Ukraine

11/10/2012

Koynash Anatoliy Oleksiyovych

67712/12

Vygivska v. Ukraine

11/10/2012

Vygivska Svitlana Mykolayivna

67723/12

Kosarenko v. Ukraine

03/10/2012

Kosarenko Lyudmyla Vasylivna

67745/12

Simakov v. Ukraine

01/10/2012

Simakov Fedir Mykolayovych

Simakov Yuriy Fedorovych

67944/12

Sakovich v. Ukraine

12/10/2012

Sakovich Andrey Viktorovich

68058/12

Saliy v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Saliy Galina Vladimirovna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68065/12

Pribytko v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Pribytko Zoya Nikolayevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68068/12

Korotkikh v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Korotkikh Galina Savelyevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68072/12

Savchenko v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Savchenko Nikolay Grigoryevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68076/12

Lubenets v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Lubenets Lyubov Grigoryevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68079/12

Mynka v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Mynka Aleksandra Andreyevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68091/12

Grinev v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Grinev Aleksandr Ivanovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68093/12

Korshenko v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Korshenko Valentina Ilyinichna

68096/12

Didenko v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Didenko Yelena Nikolayevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68098/12

Oleynikov v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Oleynikov Ivan Alekseyevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68101/12

Kotenko v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Kotenko Nikolay Ivanovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68104/12

Grineva v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Grineva Valentina Nikolayevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68107/12

Kaliberda v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Kaliberda Nikolay Vasilyevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68109/12

Kashina v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Kashina Marina Vladimirovna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68112/12

Kaliberda v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Kaliberda Yuriy Anatolyevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68115/12

Pronchakov v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Pronchakov Andrey Vasilyevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68117/12

Zhidiy v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Zhidiy Vitaliy Petrovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68119/12

Belitskaya v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Belitskaya Tatyana Aleksandrovna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68125/12

Grebenyuk v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Grebenyuk Vladimir Ivanovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68134/12

Ladik v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Ladik Valentina Sergeyevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68143/12

Alekhina v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Alekhina Galina Vasilyevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68150/12

Sleptsova v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Sleptsova Nadezhda Ivanovna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68155/12

Koshevaya v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Koshevaya Nina Grifgoryevna

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68254/12

Pakhomova v. Ukraine

15/10/2012

Pakhomova Olena Vitaliyivna

Polishchuk Pavlo Sergiyovych

68326/12

Oleynik v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Oleynik Genadiy Nikolaevich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68330/12

Zhukov v. Ukraine

16/07/2012

Zhukov Nikolay Aleksandrovich

Shchus Svetlana Anatolyevna

68338/12

Melnikov v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Melnikov Aleksandr Grigorevich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

68463/12

Plotko v. Ukraine

11/10/2012

Plotko Olena Selimgoriyivna

68690/12

Sapiton v. Ukraine

09/10/2012

Sapiton Mykola Mykolayovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

68734/12

Kharybin v. Ukraine

09/10/2012

Kharybin Grygoriy Fedorovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

68970/12

Proskura v. Ukraine

12/06/2012

Proskura Mykola Mykhaylovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

69150/12

Chupryna v. Ukraine

16/10/2012

Chupryna Yuriy Viktorovych

Zoshiy Iryna Vasylivna

69166/12

Yaremchuk v. Ukraine

10/10/2012

Yaremchuk Viktor Ivanovych

69237/12

Kolesnikov v. Ukraine

15/10/2012

Kolesnikov Petr Ivanovych

69777/12

Savkov v. Ukraine

23/10/2012

Savkov Viktor Oleksiyovych

70598/12

Lebedynets v. Ukraine

25/10/2012

Lebedynets Lyubov Fedorivna

70915/12

Yanishevskyy v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Yanishevskyy Leonid Stanislavovych

71258/12

Martynyuk v. Ukraine

22/10/2012

Martynyuk Yuriy Andriyovych

71538/12

Bityukov v. Ukraine

06/11/2012

Bityukov Sergiy Volodymyrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

71619/12

Bilyk v. Ukraine

22/09/2012

Bilyk Viktor Volodymyrovych

72502/12

Stan v. Ukraine

24/10/2012

Stan Lyudmyla Ivanivna

72833/12

Bandurova v. Ukraine

04/11/2012

Bandurova Lidiya Tymofiyivna

73770/12

Rokhman v. Ukraine

31/10/2012

Rokhman Grygoriy Petrovych

73779/12

Belyak v. Ukraine

09/11/2012

Belyak Lyudmyla Petrivna

73785/12

Semenenko v. Ukraine

16/11/2012

Semenenko Mykola Ivanovych

73795/12

Semenenko v. Ukraine

16/11/2012

Semenenko Mariya Petrivna

74017/12

Lyaskovets v. Ukraine

12/11/2012

Lyaskovets Oksana Anatoliyivna

74026/12

Beregova v. Ukraine

05/11/2012

Belogolberegova Valentyna Dmytrivna

74099/12

Teslyuk v. Ukraine

19/11/2012

Teslyuk Yuliya Andriyivna

74132/12

Zakharchenko v. Ukraine

02/11/2012

Zakharchenko Mikhail Davydovich

74163/12

Mezey v. Ukraine

15/11/2012

Mezey Yelena Vasylyevna
Mezey Ivan Mykhaylovych

74668/12

Taran v. Ukraine

14/11/2012

Taran Oleksandr Yukhymovych

74720/12

Kolchyntseva v. Ukraine

14/11/2012

Kolchyntseva Olga Oleksandrivna

74784/12

Danilenko v. Ukraine

12/11/2012

Danilenko Vira Vasylivna

75439/12

Lysytska v. Ukraine

18/11/2012

Lysytska Oksana Oleksiyivna

76196/12

Kazmirchuk v. Ukraine

21/11/2012

Kazmirchuk Yuriy Antonovych
Kazmirchuk Nataliya Vasylivna

76247/12

Zhyvotivskyy v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Zhyvotivskyy Viktor Prokhorovych

76288/12

Bilokon v. Ukraine

02/08/2012

Bilokon Oleksandr Petrovych

76338/12

Geraymovych v. Ukraine

23/11/2012

Geraymovych Galyna Ivanivna

76382/12

Ukrgeotekhnologiya, Tov v. Ukraine

10/11/2012

Ukrgeotekhnologiya, Tov

Bilokon Oleksandr Petrovych

76403/12

Klyuchko v. Ukraine

13/11/2012

Klyuchko Pavlo Volodymyrovych

76405/12

Tabachenko v. Ukraine

15/11/2012

Tabachenko Alla Mykolayivna

76411/12

Rotar v. Ukraine

21/11/2012

Rotar Aleksandr Nikolayevich

76421/12

Gegelskaya v. Ukraine

09/11/2012

Gegelskaya Antonina Aleksandrovna

76495/12

Kutyshenko v. Ukraine

23/11/2012

Kutyshenko Nataliya Petrivna

76637/12

Simolchuk v. Ukraine

10/11/2012

Simolchuk Olga Markivna

76977/12

Reva v. Ukraine

23/11/2012

Reva Nataliya Ivanivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

77350/12

Voinov v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Voinov Nikolay Vasilyevich

77388/12

Moseyev v. Ukraine

27/11/2012

Moseyev Oleksandr Ivanovych

77422/12

Moskovchenko v. Ukraine

30/11/2012

Moskovchenko Dmytro Yegorovych

77530/12

Baletskyy v. Ukraine

29/11/2012

Baletskyy Stepan Radionovych

77597/12

Pershko v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Pershko Lyubov Danylivna

77610/12

Pershko v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Pershko Petro Antonovych

78044/12

Shatskova v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Shatskova Galyna Vasylivna

78106/12

Apanasevych v. Ukraine

22/11/2012

Apanasevych Vitaliy Oleksandrovych

Nikulnykov Dmytro Oleksandrovych

78543/12

Lytvyn v. Ukraine

06/12/2012

Lytvyn Nataliya Mykhaylivna

78752/12

Perederiy v. Ukraine

23/11/2012

Perederiy Lyudmyla Ivanivna

79848/12

Tabachenko v. Ukraine

15/11/2012

Tabachenko Tetyana Stepanivna

79855/12

Tabachenko v. Ukraine

13/11/2012

Tabachenko Tetyana Stepanivna

79874/12

Bondar v. Ukraine

14/11/2012

Bondar Viktor Volodymyrovych

81598/12

Donets v. Ukraine

23/11/2012

Donets Sergey Vladimirovich

224/13

Goncharov v. Ukraine

01/11/2012

Goncharov Mykola Oleksiyovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

238/13

Sydorkin v. Ukraine

30/11/2012

Sydorkin Oleksandr Yakovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

240/13

Sviderska v. Ukraine

30/11/2012

Sviderska Tetyana Vasylivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

250/13

Pomagayeva v. Ukraine

28/11/2012

Pomagayeva Svetlana Mykhaylovna

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

2716/13

Gorobets v. Ukraine

30/12/2012

Gorobets Sergiy Anatoliyovych

2862/13

Fedorchenko v. Ukraine

30/12/2012

Fedorchenko Svetlana Viktorovna

3626/13

Kysylenko v. Ukraine

21/12/2012

Kysylenko Antonina Ivanivna

4021/13

Rozhko v. Ukraine

05/01/2013

Rozhko Anatoliy Mykolayovych

4228/13

Podorozhnyy v. Ukraine

30/12/2012

Podorozhnyy Mykhaylo Petrovych

4707/13

Pegov v. Ukraine

26/12/2012

Pegov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kolesnikov Vladimir Anatolyevich

4770/13

Sherevenets v. Ukraine

28/11/2012

Sherevenets Petro Yakovych

4831/13

Kustovskyy v. Ukraine

26/12/2012

Kustovskyy Oleksiy Fedorovych

5383/13

Byvalin v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Byvalin Viktor Oleksandrovych

5387/13

Lavriyenko v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Lavriyenko Petro Gavrylovych

5451/13

Lavriyenko v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Lavriyenko Tetyana Petrivna

5463/13

Krasov v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Krasov Mykola Yosypovych

5468/13

Savin v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Savin Anatoliy Tymofiyovych

5553/13

Maksymchuk v. Ukraine

28/12/2012

Maksymchuk Grygoriy Vasylyovych

5611/13

Peshkova v. Ukraine

27/12/2012

Peshkova Mariya Zakharovna

5634/13

Pavlovskyy v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Pavlovskyy Mykola Georgiyovych

5818/13

Kichuk v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Kichuk Vasyl Andriyovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

5830/13

Shtepa v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Shtepa Viktor Ivanovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

5841/13

Pulyanov v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Pulyanov Oleksandr Georgiyovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

5853/13

Filon v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Filon Mykhaylo Fedorovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

5966/13

Peretyatko v. Ukraine

26/12/2012

Peretyatko Rayisa Tykhonivna

6111/13

Marinin v. Ukraine

03/01/2013

Marinin Viktor Leonidovych

6809/13

Volodko v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Volodko Alla Grygorivna

6990/13

Zaytseva v. Ukraine

05/01/2013

Zaytseva Valentyna Ivanivna

7037/13

Miklukha v. Ukraine

15/01/2013

Miklukha Igor Valeriyovych

7720/13

Prup Yuzhnodonbasskaya 1 v. Ukraine

10/01/2013

Prup Yuzhnodonbasskaya 1

7734/13

Ivanets v. Ukraine

17/01/2013

Ivanets Vasyl Oleksandrovych

7795/13

Karitskiy v. Ukraine

16/01/2013

Karitskiy Maksim Yuryevich

7818/13

Chikmarev v. Ukraine

14/01/2013

Chikmarev Mikhail Dmitriyevich

7942/13

Bilokon v. Ukraine

05/12/2012

Bilokon Oleksandr Petrovych

8030/13

Semenyura v. Ukraine

17/01/2013

Semenyura Yuriy Grygorovych

8069/13

Chiliy v. Ukraine

17/01/2013

Chiliy Vasyl Vasylyovych

8122/13

Dyachenko v. Ukraine

10/01/2013

Dyachenko Paraska Vasylivna

8205/13

Soroka v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Soroka Oleksandr Savych

8331/13

Denysov v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Denysov Ivan Tymofiyovych

Klopkov Sergiy Mykolayovych

8425/13

Kurenya v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Kurenya Oleksandr Oleksiyovych

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

8481/13

Mashevskaya v. Ukraine

20/01/2013

Mashevskaya Olga Alekseevna

8548/13

Gendin v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Gendin Anatoliy Isaakovich

8825/13

Akimenko v. Ukraine

22/01/2013

Akimenko Valentina Mikhaylovna

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

8829/13

Aksenov v. Ukraine

22/01/2013

Aksenov Vladimir Vasilyevich

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

8832/13

Akimenko v. Ukraine

22/01/2013

Akimenko Vitaliy Nikolayevich

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

9070/13

Ignatchuk v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Ignatchuk Ivan Yakymovych

9149/13

Makogon v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Makogon Mykola Ivanovych

9166/13

Rybynska v. Ukraine

19/01/2013

Rybynska Ganna Grygorivna

9179/13

Safyannikov v. Ukraine

03/01/2013

Safyannikov Igor Viktorovich

9184/13

Lyubarenko v. Ukraine

15/01/2013

Lyubarenko Oleksiy Andriyovych

9278/13

Chiliy v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Chiliy Vasyl Vasylyovych

9281/13

Chiliy v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Chiliy Vasyl Vasylyovych

9286/13

Chiliy v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Chiliy Vasyl Vasylyovych

9329/13

Alyeksyeyenko v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Alyeksyeyenko Volodymyr Ivanovych

9419/13

Banduryst v. Ukraine

09/01/2013

Banduryst Leonid Petrovych

9440/13

Ovechkin v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Ovechkin Ivan Sergiyovych

9733/13

Naumenko v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Naumenko Ivan Gavrylovych

9758/13

Suprun v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Suprun Maksym Viktorovych

9811/13

Anikin v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Anikin Ruslan Anatoliyovych

9815/13

Pipko v. Ukraine

10/01/2013

Pipko Viktor Vasilyevich

9833/13

Sikan v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Sikan Volodymyr Yuriyovych

9838/13

Averin v. Ukraine

24/01/2013

Averin Oleksandr Oleksandrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

10037/13

Plyushchiy v. Ukraine

15/01/2013

Plyushchiy Zoya Petrivna

Shapovalov Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

10065/13

Stepanenko v. Ukraine

15/01/2013

Stepanenko Volodymyr Ivanovych

10111/13

Chepurchenko v. Ukraine

31/01/2013

Chepurchenko Lidiya Vasylivna

10147/13

Bondar v. Ukraine

29/01/2013

Bondar Igor Mykolayovych

10272/13

Tadra v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Tadra Denis Vladimirovich

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

10275/13

Vorobey v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Vorobey Valentyna Anatoliyivna

10334/13

Maksymyuk v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Maksymyuk Mykola Dmytrovych

10343/13

Chyrva v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Chyrva Yevgen Ivanovych

10371/13

Subotniy v. Ukraine

29/01/2013

Subotniy Oleksiy Kostyantynovych

10483/13

Mezey v. Ukraine

15/11/2012

Mezey Ivan Mykhaylovych
Mezey Yelena Vasylyevna

10502/13

Kalinkin v. Ukraine

16/01/2013

Kalinkin Viktor Abramovych

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

10526/13

Domanchuk v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Domanchuk Lyubov Petrivna

10547/13

Kysil v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Kysil Nataliya Oleksiyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

10629/13

Martyan v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Martyan Sergiy Grygorovych

10699/13

Kolesnyk v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Kolesnyk Vladimir Ilyich

10963/13

Vaskovskyy v. Ukraine

04/01/2013

Vaskovskyy Viktor Vasylyovych

10985/13

Nikolaychuk v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Nikolaychuk Mykola Martynovych

10989/13

Shlyaga v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Shlyaga Stanislav Mykolayovych

10998/13

Dedusenko v. Ukraine

05/02/2013

Dedusenko Alla Petrivna

11002/13

Chiliy v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Chiliy Vasyl Vasylyovych

11265/13

Ponomarev v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Ponomarev Sergey Vitalyevich

11284/13

Shitikova v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Shitikova Tamara Sergiyivna

11324/13

Oliynyk v. Ukraine

17/01/2013

Oliynyk Bogdan Grygorovych

11379/13

Feshchenko v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Feshchenko Mariya Yakymivna

11577/13

Drozd v. Ukraine

14/01/2013

Drozd Mykola Oleksiyovych

11582/13

Butko v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Butko Anatoliy Vasylyovych

11586/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Bondarenko Anatoliy Petrovych

11634/13

Vislyy v. Ukraine

14/01/2013

Vyslyy Anatoliy Leonidovych

11648/13

Umanchuk v. Ukraine

10/01/2013

Umanchuk Raisa Ivanovna

11742/13

Glodan v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Glodan Ganna Makarivna

11756/13

Maymurenko v. Ukraine

31/01/2013

Maymurenko Sergey Ivanovich

11761/13

Shershneva v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Shershneva Tamara Petrovna

11775/13

Yadernaya v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yadernaya Anna Mikhaylovna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

11803/13

Kycha v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Kycha Olena Mykolayivna

11816/13

Strelyuk v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Strelyuk Svetlana Vladimirovna

11821/13

Ganenko v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Ganenko Antonina Yakovlivna

11970/13

Balyasa v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Balyasa Oleksandr Fedorovych

11974/13

Balyasa v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Balyasa Oleksandr Fedorovych

12238/13

Melnychuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Melnychuk Leonid Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12262/13

Kostenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kostenko Ivan Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12270/13

Dubovykh v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dubovykh Olena Borysivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12273/13

Kiriyachenko v. Ukraine

29/01/2013

Kiriyachenko Vasyl Panasovych

12286/13

Kozhanov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kozhanov Yevgen Pavlovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12290/13

Ivakh v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ivakh Valentyna Petrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12293/13

Kurach v. Ukraine

26/01/2013

Kurach Oleksandr Mykhaylovych

12299/13

Tarasova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tarasova Galyna Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12316/13

Zhukova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zhukova Tamara Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12320/13

Kuksenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kuksenko Volodymyr Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12329/13

Miroshnykov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Miroshnykov Oleksiy Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12335/13

Sotskoy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sotskoy Vyacheslav Volodymyrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12356/13

Sheregeda v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sheregeda Oleksandr Andriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12373/13

Tsyganenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tsyganenko Nina Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12377/13

Tarasov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tarasov Mykola Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12382/13

Tofanyuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tofanyuk Svitvana Kostyantynivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12388/13

Sydorenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sydorenko Grygoriy Tymofiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12409/13

Stadnyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Stadnyk Oleksandr Viktorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12414/13

Sychova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sychova Nina Petrovna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12420/13

Semenchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Semenchenko Yuriy Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12425/13

Samoylovych v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Samoylovych Vladislav Volodymyrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12428/13

Stepanova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Stepanova Valentyna Gavrylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12448/13

Sidich v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sidich Sergiy Stepanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12459/13

Stadnyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Stadnyk Ivan Pavlovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12463/13

Smyrnova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Smyrnova Tetyana Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12476/13

Rusavska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Rusavska Galyna Petrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12482/13

Rozhkova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Rozhkova Lyudmyla Mykhaylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12484/13

Padalka v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Padalka Yuriy Petrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12486/13

Polyakov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Polyakov Volodymyr Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12487/13

Prykhodko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Prykhodko Ivan Volodymyrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12488/13

Plokha v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Plokha Olga Leonidivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12493/13

Oliynyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Oliynyk Viktor Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12497/13

Olefirenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Olefirenko Nadiya Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12501/13

Nikitin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nikitin Mykola Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12506/13

Nesmiyanov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nesmiyanov Gennadiy Fedorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12514/13

Kolodnytskyy v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Kolodnytskyy Dmytro Zinoviyovych

12524/13

Nesterenko v. Ukraine

11/01/2013

Nesterenko Vasyl Vasylyovych

12527/13

Nechytaylo v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nechytaylo Mykhaylo Petrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12533/13

Kitvyts v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Kitvyts Volodymyr Ivanovych

12538/13

Nekrasova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nekrasova Nataliya Oleksiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12549/13

Manko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Manko Lidiya Semenivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12563/13

Mykhaylov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Mykhaylov Mykola Stefanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12573/13

Malych v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Malych Galyna Sergiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12578/13

Makarenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Makarenko Antonina Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12580/13

Valochkina v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Valochkina Olga Viktorovna

12587/13

Moskvina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Moskvina Valentyna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12597/13

Lupenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Lupenko Lyudmyla Dmytrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12604/13

Lypar v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Lypar Sergiy Yegorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12613/13

Levchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Levchenko Mykola Oleksiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12624/13

Klipanda v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Klipanda Valentyna Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12631/13

Kanivets v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kanivets Oleksandr Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12670/13

Kravets v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Kravets Ivan Gavrylovych

12705/13

Zorya v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zorya Lidiya Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12706/13

Zagrebelnyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zagrebelnyy Dmytro Yevgenovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12710/13

Ivanova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ivanova Oleksandra Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12713/13

Komlyakov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Komlyakov Yuriy Pavlovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12716/13

Klyeshayeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Klyeshayeva Lidiya Tykhonivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12730/13

Kolomiyets v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kolomiyets Oleksandr Grygorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12736/13

Kosheva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kosheva Lyubov Yegorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12740/13

Kolesnyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kolesnyk Mykola Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12749/13

Kostrub v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kostrub Lyubov Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12754/13

Katunova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Katunova Larysa Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12758/13

Kotlyarova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kotlyarova Tetyana Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12769/13

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kravchenko Mykola Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12772/13

Podolya v. Ukraine

06/02/2013

Podolya Yuriy Stepanovich

12778/13

Budarin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Budarin Oleksandr Yakovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12785/13

Blyznyuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Blyznyuk Sergiy Petrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12790/13

Drobyshev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Drobyshev Oleg Kostyantynovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12793/13

Alyeksyeyenko v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Alyeksyeyenko Volodymyr Ivanovych

12798/13

Demchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Demchenko Viktor Oleksiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12807/13

Dmyterko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dmyterko Vira Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12812/13

Gladysh v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gladysh Vasyl Viktorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12819/13

Goncharov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Goncharov Vasyl Andriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12874/13

Ovcharenko v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Ovcharenko Mykola Ivanovych

12876/13

Ovcharenko v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Ovcharenko Mykola Ivanovych

12878/13

Ovcharenko v. Ukraine

18/01/2013

Ovcharenko Mykola Ivanovych

12892/13

Zayets v. Ukraine

27/01/2013

Zayets Vladimir Filippovich

12897/13

Koryakin v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Koryakin Sergiy Volodymyrovych

12909/13

Grechanovskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grechanovskyy Yuriy Sergiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12914/13

Glynska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Glynska Lyudmyla Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12920/13

Mikulenko v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Mikulenko Vasiliy Alekseyevich

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

12922/13

Grunskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grunskyy Sergiy Volodymyrovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12926/13

Gorbasenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gorbasenko Tetyana Gavrylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12943/13

Zhigalova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zhigalova Olga Yuriyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12950/13

Zimbrovskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zimbrovskyy Yevgen Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12959/13

Syzov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Syzov Yuriy Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12965/13

Divinska v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Divinska Natalya Anatoliyivna

12981/13

Gorbasenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gorbasenko Leonid Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12983/13

Boreyko v. Ukraine

30/12/2012

Boreyko Sergiy Andriyovych

12991/13

Poldnyev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Poldnyev Valeriy Valentinovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

12993/13

Levchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Levchenko Alla Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13000/13

Zubrytskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zubrytskyy Petro Kyrylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13009/13

Yurkshtas v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yurkshtas Oleksandra Tykhonivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13015/13

Bondar v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondar Valentyna Semenivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13019/13

Zhuravlyova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zhuravlyova Larysa Petrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13035/13

Byelyaeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Byelyaeva Tetyana Dmytrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13048/13

Mayorova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Mayorova Galyna Viktorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13057/13

Berezhna v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Berezhna Tetyana Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13064/13

Kiriy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kiriy Olena Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13070/13

Berlizov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Berlizov Anatoliy Mykhaylovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13093/13

Tykhonova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tykhonova Nataliya Dmytrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13101/13

Andryeyeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Andryeyeva Tetyana Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13108/13

Brintsova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Brintsova Olga Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13127/13

Chala v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Chala Olga Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13136/13

Mykhaylov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Mykhaylov Oleksandr Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13142/13

Grechka v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grechka Vasyl Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13146/13

Zinkovskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zinkovskyy Anatoliy Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13166/13

Anatoliy Marchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Marchenko Anatoliy Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13168/13

Rogocha v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Rogocha Lidiya Serafymivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13169/13

Shlyaga v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Shlyaga Olga Anatoliyivna

13170/13

Martynenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Martynenko Galyna Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13174/13

Shornyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shornyk Nadiya Svyridonivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13177/13

Shlyaga v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Shlyaga Mykola Vasylyovych

13178/13

Yurkova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yurkova Viktoriya Vitoldivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13179/13

Zhyrnova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zhyrnova Rayisa Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13192/13

Dudchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dudchenko Kateryna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13199/13

Tarasenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tarasenko Svitlana Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13203/13

Levkivskyy v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Levkivskyy Vasyl Semenovych

13208/13

Kleshchevnikova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kleshchevnikova Tetyana Dmytrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13212/13

Stanivchuk v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Stanivchuk Yuliya Ivanovna

13214/13

Kulinchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kulinchenko Galyna Yukhymivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13220/13

Dolga v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dolga Nadiya Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13222/13

Kharchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kharchenko Iryna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13228/13

Orlov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Orlov Mykhaylo Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13232/13

Sokolenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sokolenko Oleksandr Yevgenovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13233/13

Kovalyova v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Kovalyova Lidiya Mykolayivna

13243/13

Krovyakov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Krovyakov Pavlo Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13259/13

Ponomaryova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ponomaryova Kateryna Stepanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13272/13

Poklonskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Poklonskyy Ruslan Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13315/13

Tarasov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tarasov Oleksandr Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13317/13

Inozemets v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Inozemets Nina Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13320/13

Yarovyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yarovyy Oleksandr Anatoliyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13323/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondarenko Volodymyr Andriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13326/13

Perestyuk v. Ukraine

10/01/2013

Perestyuk Andriy Petrovych

13340/13

Khristova v. Ukraine

25/02/2012

Khristova Yekaterina Ilyinichna

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

13341/13

Grynyev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grynyev Mykhaylo Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13346/13

Pecherskiy v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Pecherskiy Igor Ilyich

13348/13

Kokhan v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kokhan Sergiy Grygorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13356/13

Budnytska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Budnytska Tetyana Viktorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13360/13

Golik v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Golik Tetyana Arkadiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13365/13

Meleshko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Meleshko Volodymyr Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13368/13

Semenikhina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Semenikhina Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13372/13

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kravchenko Leonid Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13376/13

Nepochatov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nepochatov Yuriy Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13377/13

Kosyak v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kosyak Lyubov Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13383/13

Kuznetsova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kuznetsova Olena Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13385/13

Ksyenzhyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ksyenzhyk Petro Gennadiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13388/13

Babakova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Babakova Olena Savvivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13393/13

Dubochynska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dubochynska Olga Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13396/13

Gorbynova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gorbynova Lyubov Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13404/13

Kovalyov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kovalyov Fedir Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13412/13

Kucherenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kucherenko Larysa Viktorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13419/13

Tyeryekhov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tyeryekhov Sergiy Georgiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13429/13

Isakov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Isakov Valeriy Oleksanrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13440/13

Ruban v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ruban Oleksandra Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13443/13

Babakov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Babakov Sergiy Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13450/13

Nazaruk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nazaruk Valentyna Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13459/13

Kulynych v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kulynych Valeriy Andriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13464/13

Grynko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grynko Mariya Fedorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13470/13

Zaikin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zaikin Oleksiy Oleksiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13476/13

Gysyatnykova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gysyatnykova Nataliya Mykhaylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13480/13

Filippov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Filippov Sergiy Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13483/13

Pavlenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Pavlenko Vasyl Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13497/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondarenko Liliya Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13502/13

Sbitnyeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sbitnyeva Olga Grygorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13508/13

Zoryanska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zoryanska Raisa Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13514/13

Lebid v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Lebid Svitlana Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13521/13

Dyetkina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dyetkina Ganna Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13526/13

Domalyega v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Domalyega Lyudmila Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13536/13

Sokhina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sokhina Vira Grygorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13540/13

Vyshnyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Vyshnyk Ludmyla Grygorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13548/13

Trima v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Trima Lyudmyla Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13588/13

Yaremchuk v. Ukraine

17/10/2012

Yaremchuk Viktor Ivanovych

13600/13

Polyakova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Polyakova Olena Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13611/13

Zudina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zudina Eleonora Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13614/13

Nastenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nastenko Olga Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13618/13

Gorkina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gorkina Ganna Yakivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13626/13

Yatsenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yatsenko Tetyana Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13630/13

Yaremchuk v. Ukraine

07/11/2012

Yaremchuk Viktor Ivanovych

13632/13

Khavustova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Khavustova Valentyna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13633/13

Zatolokina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Zatolokina Nadiya Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13634/13

Koba v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Koba Oleksandr Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13636/13

Martyshova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Martyshova Kateryna Ananiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13638/13

Derevnin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Derevnin Vitaliy Dmytrovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13659/13

Stepanova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Stepanova Larysa Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13660/13

Yerokhova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yerokhova Rayisa Yakivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13661/13

Shalya v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shalya Lyudmyla Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13663/13

Tymoshenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tymoshenko Mykola Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13664/13

Tokaryev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tokaryev Volodymyr Dmytrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13672/13

Sydorenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sydorenko Iryna Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13675/13

Shavlak v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shavlak Nadiya Petrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13690/13

Markova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Markova Mariya Stepanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13692/13

Grechanovska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grechanovska Iryna Viktorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13697/13

Sokolova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sokolova Galyna Mykhaylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13700/13

Levchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Levchenko Mykola Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13703/13

Leonova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Leonova Larysa Gennadiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13707/13

Marchak v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Marchak Tayisiya Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13718/13

Boldyryev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Boldyryev Grygoriy Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13723/13

Tkachenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tkachenko Nadiya Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13735/13

Yevsyeyev v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yevsyeyev Volodymyr Yuriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13740/13

Shef v. Ukraine

24/01/2013

Shef Vladimir Georgiyevich

13742/13

Krupynska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Krupynska Olga Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13751/13

Shelkovina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shelkovina Tetyana Semenivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13753/13

Shyshkin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shyshkin Mykola Panasovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13781/13

Litvinova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Litvinova Olena Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13805/13

Kofanova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kofanova Nadiya Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13812/13

Belyavskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Belyavskyy Stanislav Adolfovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13824/13

Tyshchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tyshchenko Olena Mykhailivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13828/13

Serdyuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Serdyuk Fedir Gavrylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13834/13

Bondar v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondar Valentyna Semenivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13836/13

Nastenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Nastenko Yevgen Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13843/13

Kapshukova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kapshukova Lubov Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13847/13

Donchyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Donchyk Lyudmila Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13851/13

Tyshchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tyshchenko Anatoliy Tymofiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13860/13

Bartashevych v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bartashevych Viktor Volodymyrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13876/13

Liyko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Liyko Sergiy Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13885/13

Ryabokon v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ryabokon Larysa Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13891/13

Grybanikov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Grybanikov Dmytro Valentynovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13895/13

Solodyeyeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Solodyeyeva Ganna Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13901/13

Kyslova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kyslova Nina Vasylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13914/13

Pruss v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Pruss Tamara Oleksiyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13916/13

Zhmak v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Zhmak Yuriy Gnatovych

13920/13

Dudchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Dudchenko Oleksandr Oleksiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13933/13

Novikov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Novikov Mykhaylo Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13934/13

Sidorenko v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Sidorenko Nikolay Dmitriyevich

13937/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shevchenko Lyubov Yakivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13945/13

Kopyltsov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kopyltsov Oleksandr Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13949/13

Savchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Savchenko Volodymyr Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

13978/13

Kashapov v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Kashapov Oleksiy Semenovych

13984/13

Levkivska v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Levkivska Nadiya Pavlivna

14000/13

Puzanska v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Puzanska Nataliya Odiseyivna

14008/13

Dyadechko v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Dyadechko Grygoriy Karlovych

14216/13

Reznikov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Reznikov Anatoliy Dmitrievich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14227/13

Gladysh v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gladysh Viktor Vasilyevich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14240/13

Bilym v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bilym Viktor Ivanovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14250/13

Seryozhkin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Seryozhkin Sergiy Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14252/13

Kostyuchek v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kostyuchek Antonina Kostyantynivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14262/13

Chernyavskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Chernyavskyy Viktor Grygorovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14277/13

Kovgan v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kovgan Zoya Petrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14281/13

Petrov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Petrov Kostyantyn Georgiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14290/13

Oliynyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Oliynyk Valentyna Vyacheslavivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14291/13

Drygina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Drygina Nataliya Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14322/13

Agafonova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Agafonova Rayisa Dmytrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14329/13

Kobylynskyy v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Kobylynskyy Oleksandr Mykolayovych

14334/13

Sekirska v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sekirska Vira Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14336/13

Zakharchuk v. Ukraine

16/02/2013

Zakharchuk Lyubov Vasylivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

14345/13

Bogdan v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bogdan Fedir Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14346/13

Zuy v. Ukraine

16/02/2013

Zuy Mykola Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

14352/13

Kutovyy v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Kutovyy Anatoliy Mykolayovych

Romanishyn Oleg Oleksandrovych

14354/13

Gorskyy v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Gorskyy Leonid Kirillovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14372/13

Yermola v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Yermola Zinayida Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14375/13

Tatarinova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tatarinova Nataliya Grygorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14376/13

Sytnyk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sytnyk Valeriy Oleksiyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14378/13

Mandryka v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Mandryka Iryna Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14380/13

Mandryka v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Mandryka Anatoliy Yosypovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14383/13

Oliynykov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Oliynykov Viktor Andriyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14394/13

Reznichenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Reznichenko Tamara Oleksandrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14404/13

Chesnokov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Chesnokov Valeriy Vladimirovich

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14410/13

Savchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Savchenko Mykola Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14447/13

Guba v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Guba Tetyana Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14477/13

Tymoshenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tymoshenko Mykola Vasylyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14489/13

Salymonenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Salymonenko Igor Zinoviyovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14503/13

Tarasova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Tarasova Galyna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14514/13

Salymonenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Salymonenko Nina Andriyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14521/13

Kolesnykova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kolesnykova Iryna Anatoliyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14531/13

Sokolyuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sokolyuk Nelya Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14548/13

Ivanisov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ivanisov Gennadiy Dmytrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14552/13

Lisovska v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Lisovska Lyubov Petrivna

Shapovalov Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

14556/13

Antonenko v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Antonenko Nina Borysivna

Shapovalov Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

14559/13

Konstantinov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Konstantinov Oleksandr Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14561/13

Beregova v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Beregova Vira Ivanivna

Shapovalov Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

14609/13

Cherkasov v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Cherkasov Oleksandr Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14614/13

Vasylenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Vasylenko Lyudmyla Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14617/13

Shapkova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Shapkova Larysa Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14621/13

Chumachenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Chumachenko Ganna Illivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14626/13

Prykhodko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Prykhodko Valentyna Viktorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14627/13

Demyanenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Demyanenko Tetyana Grygorivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14632/13

Pikhtiyenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Pikhtiyenko Tetyana Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14634/13

Ilchenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Ilchenko Valentyna Volodyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14636/13

Goncharova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Goncharova Lyudmyla Illivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14639/13

Konstantinova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Konstantinova Tetyana Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14646/13

Sladkina v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sladkina Rayda Volodymyrivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14648/13

Toropygin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Toropygin Ivan Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14655/13

Chukhno v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Chukhno Ivan Mykolayovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14664/13

Sklyarova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Sklyarova Tetyana Yevgeniyivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14673/13

Demydovych v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Demydovych Olena Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14679/13

Vaskovskyy v. Ukraine

13/02/2013

Vaskovskyy Viktor Mykhaylovych

14681/13

Kes v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kes Galyna Mykolayivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14685/13

Reznikova v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Reznikova Olga Romanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14700/13

Kuryacha v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Kuryacha Nadiya Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14704/13

Andreyeva v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Andreyeva Lyubov Mykhaylivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14705/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondarenko Valentyna Ivanivna

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14735/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Bondarenko Yevgen Oleksandrovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14739/13

Korovin v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Korovin Yevgen Mykhaylovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14745/13

Parafenyuk v. Ukraine

11/11/2012

Parafenyuk Volodymyr Ivanovych

Kuzmenko Gennadiy Ilyich

14756/13

Tsistan v. Ukraine

29/01/2013

Tsistan Valentina Vitalyevna

14799/13

Yarova v. Ukraine

22/02/2013

Yarova Olga Mykolayivna

14811/13

Lebid v. Ukraine

09/02/2013

Lebid Lidiya Mykolayivna

14895/13

Travnikov v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Travnikov Mykola Mykolayovych

14906/13

Semanyuk v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Semanyuk Yevgeniya Fedorivna

14931/13

Obukhovskaya v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Obukhovskaya Tamara Andreyevna

14938/13

Leshkovich v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Leshkovich Gennadiy Zigmundovich

14950/13

Dyvak v. Ukraine

05/02/2013

Dyvak Petro Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

14953/13

Radchenko v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Radchenko Ganna Ivanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

14954/13

Voznyuk v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Voznyuk Anatoliy Yevgeniyovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

14959/13

Talan v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Talan Sergiy Yuriyovych

14960/13

Bilotskyy v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Bilotskyy Mykhaylo Anatoliyovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15096/13

Kyselyova v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Kyselyova Antonina Pavlivna

15102/13

Dzyuba v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Dzyuba Viktor Fedorovich

15111/13

Berdova v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Berdova Valentina Nikolayevna

15140/13

Chukhno v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Chukhno Mitrafan Pavlovich

15141/13

Koshchavets v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Koshchavets Mykola Oleksandrovych

15143/13

Chernyuk v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Chernyuk Anastasiya Gordiyivna

Koltonyuk Yuriy Vitaliyovych

15144/13

Chernyuk v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Chernyuk Ganna Ilarionivna

Koltonyuk Yuriy Vitaliyovych

15145/13

Chernyuk v. Ukraine

30/01/2013

Chernyuk Feodosiy Gordiyovych

Koltonyuk Yuriy Vitaliyovych

15166/13

Ivakha v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Ivakha Lyudmyla Petrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15181/13

Bytkivskyy v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Bytkivskyy Sergiy Vasylyovych

15184/13

Kudra v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Kudra Vasyl Mykolayovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15193/13

Platonov v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Platonov Stanislav Petrovich

15304/13

Kordon, Tov v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Kordon, Tov

15309/13

Kozenko v. Ukraine

05/02/2013

Kozenko Sergey Viktorovich

15374/13

Savinova v. Ukraine

12/10/2012

Savinova Klavdiya Vasilyevna

15376/13

Latyshov v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Latyshov Viktor Vasilyevich

15381/13

Grobovod v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Grobovod Gennadiy Ivanovich

15412/13

Kordysh v. Ukraine

19/01/2013

Kordysh Mykola Leontiyovych

15419/13

Kozhemyako v. Ukraine

11/08/2011

Kozhemyako Lyudmyla Andriyivna

15422/13

Odnovolyk v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Odnovolyk Galyna Dmytrivna

15426/13

Karpets v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Karpets Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15439/13

Khutorov v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Khutorov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich

15529/13

Makovska v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Makovska Alla Dmytrivna

15530/13

Demyanchuk v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Demyanchuk Myron Dmytrovych

15531/13

Shitets v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Shitets Vladimir Stepanovich

15541/13

Leshchenko v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Leshchenko Petro Mykolayovych

15575/13

Nozhenko v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Nozhenko Mykola Fedorovych

15591/13

Vasilyeva v. Ukraine

22/01/2013

Vasilyeva Mariya Petrovna

15602/13

Nevmerzhytskyy v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Nevmerzhytskyy Volodymyr Musiyovych

15639/13

Kudra v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Kudra Yeva Dmytrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15659/13

Kukharchuk v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Kukharchuk Petro Ivanovych

15674/13

Bazarenko v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Bazarenko Anatoliy Oleksandrovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15683/13

Cherkasov v. Ukraine

09/09/2011

Cherkasov Yuriy Vasylyovych

15690/13

Kudra v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Kudra Sergiy Mykolayovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15696/13

Kryvchenko v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Kryvchenko Yuliya Volodymyrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15698/13

Yatsyk v. Ukraine

16/02/2013

Yatsyk Larysa Antonivna

15700/13

Nychyporchuk v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Nychyporchuk Anatoliy Mykolayovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15714/13

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Kovalenko Stanislav Panasovych

15735/13

Podolyanets v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Podolyanets Tetyana Anatoliyivna

15737/13

Gontsovska v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Gontsovska Nadiya Anatoliyivna

15739/13

Gontsovskyy v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Gontsovskyy Mykola Petrovych

15741/13

Likhonosov v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Likhonosov Vladimir Alekseyevich

15742/13

Vygivska v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Vygivska Galyna Ivanivna

15744/13

Zayets v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Zayets Lyudmyla Petrivna

15748/13

Trop v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Trop Viktor Grygorovych

15756/13

Patlay v. Ukraine

06/02/2013

Patlay Mykola Ivanovych

15762/13

Naumenko v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Naumenko Inna Vladarovna

15771/13

Shlyaga v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Shlyaga Stanislav Mykolayovych

15772/13

Naklytska v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Naklytska Olena Anatoliyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15774/13

Gutsulyak v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Gutsulyak Mariya Mykolayivna

15776/13

Suprovich v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Suprovich Oleksandr Mykolayovych

15783/13

Ponomarenko v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Ponomarenko Raisa Ivanovna

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

15789/13

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

28/01/2013

Nevmerzhytska Olga Vasylyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

15797/13

Gerasimenko v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Gerasimenko Ivan Semenovich

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

15812/13

Shtayer v. Ukraine

08/02/2013

Shtayer Ganna Vasylivna

15830/13

Butko v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Butko Lyudmila Fedorovna

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

15876/13

Derkach v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Derkach Yuriy Vladimirovich

15882/13

Markiyanenko v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Markiyanenko Olga Illivna

15905/13

Milkina v. Ukraine

11/12/2012

Milkina Valentyna Andriyivna

15915/13

Bondar v. Ukraine

06/02/2013

Bondar Igor Mykolayovych

15928/13

Netetskyy v. Ukraine

13/02/2013

Netetskyy Vasyl Fedorovych

16006/13

Sytnik v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Sytnik Viktor Vladimirovich

16069/13

Zagoruyko v. Ukraine

27/12/2012

Zagoruyko Petro Ivanovych

16080/13

Manyovska v. Ukraine

13/02/2013

Manyovska Ganna Ivanivna

16147/13

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Kravchenko Gennadiy Arsentiyovych

16162/13

Grokh v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Grokh Vitaliy Mykhaylovych

16187/13

Burtovyy v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Burtovyy Vasyl Ivanovych

16205/13

Polishchuk v. Ukraine

21/02/2013

Polishchuk Anastasiya Dmytrivna

16227/13

Zhuravlyeva v. Ukraine

09/02/2013

Zhuravlyeva Varvara Alfimovna

16232/13

Markiyanenko v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Markiyanenko Olga Illivna

16374/13

Leshkovich v. Ukraine

27/01/2013

Leshkovich Gennadiy Zigmundovich

16379/13

Gnatenko v. Ukraine

28/11/2012

Gnatenko Ivan Gnatovych

16394/13

But v. Ukraine

23/02/2013

But Anatoliy Anatoliyovych

16423/13

Nedashkivskyy v. Ukraine

23/02/2013

Nedashkivskyy Kostyantyn Mykhaylovych

16434/13

Pryymak v. Ukraine

14/12/2012

Pryymak Volodymdyr Zakharovych

Bardin Oleksandr Ivanovych

16487/13

Kysylenko v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Kysylenko Antonina Ivanivna

16533/13

Slobodenyuk v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Slobodenyuk Volodymyr Petrovych

16542/13

Buryak v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Buryak Yuriy Ivanovych

16551/13

Shapovalov v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Shapovalov Oleksandr Ivanovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

16553/13

Shostak v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Shostak Olena Dmytrivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

16555/13

Onofreychuk v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Onofreychuk Tetyana Oleksandrivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

16556/13

Taranenko v. Ukraine

07/02/2013

Taranenko Oleksandr Antonovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

16607/13

Bobrova v. Ukraine

14/07/2008

Bobrova Lyudmila Fyodorovna

Fuklev Valeriy Andriyovych

16610/13

Pershko v. Ukraine

17/02/2013

Pershko Petro Antonovych

16618/13

Lazurovich v. Ukraine

28/12/2012

Lazurovich Nikolay Petrovich

16621/13

Krugliy v. Ukraine

13/02/2013

Krugliy Anatoliy Mykolayovych

16634/13

Tyurin v. Ukraine

26/12/2012

Tyurin Yevgen Georgiyovych

16705/13

Kozenko v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Kozenko Sergey Viktorovich

16713/13

Kozenko v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Kozenko Sergey Viktorovich

16730/13

Zelenskyy v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Zelenskyy Sergiy Anatoliyovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

16731/13

Zelenska v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Zelenska Olga Onysymivna

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

16732/13

Vaskivskyy v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Vaskivskyy Mykola Ivanovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

16733/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Shevchenko Andriy Volodymyrovych

Pogribna Svitlana Oleksandrivna

16792/13

Kolyada v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Kolyada Lyudmila Grigoryevna

16809/13

Pyvko v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Pyvko Vladyslav Andriyovych

16835/13

Fedorchuk v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Fedorchuk Yuriy Mykolayovych

16957/13

Polishchuk v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Polishchuk Vitaliy Petrovych

16964/13

Bezuglyy v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Bezuglyy Grygoriy Ivanovych

16992/13

Mervinskyy v. Ukraine

19/02/2013

Mervinskyy Leonid Apolinarovych

17019/13

Baranets v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Baranets Mariya Andriyivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

17027/13

Zhytnyk v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Zhytnyk Galyna Pavlivna

17065/13

Kyselyov v. Ukraine

23/02/2013

Kyselyov Sergiy Yevgenovych

17089/13

Bachok v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Bachok Yosyp Antonovych

17147/13

Fedorchuk v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Fedorchuk Tetyana Ivanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

17159/13

Tolkach v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Tolkach Zhanna Nikolayevna

17191/13

Skyba v. Ukraine

22/02/2013

Skyba Roman Mykhaylovych

17194/13

Vasyanovych v. Ukraine

26/02/2013

Vasyanovych Mykola Fedorovych

17213/13

Kozenko v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Kozenko Sergey Viktorovich

17254/13

Kondratyuk v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Kondratyuk Anatoliy Mykhaylovych

17260/13

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Kravchenko Valentyna Mykhaylivna

17266/13

Nikitchyn v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Nikitchyn Vadym Oleksandrovych

17314/13

Olkhovskiy v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Olkhovskiy Yuriy Mikhaylovich

17317/13

Bobrov v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Bobrov Sergey Leonidovich

17321/13

Koval v. Ukraine

26/02/2013

Koval Mykhaylo Bogdanovych

17330/13

Novak v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Novak Oleksandr Ivanovych

17334/13

Martyan v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Martyan Sergiy Grygorovych

17350/13

Tsistan v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Tsistan Aleksandr Anatolyevich

17398/13

Kharkovskiy v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Kharkovskiy Aleksey Ivanovich

17414/13

Fefelova v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Fefelova Tatyana Mikhaylovna

17516/13

Dobronos v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Dobronos Vladimir Petrovich

17553/13

Komarova v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Komarova Valentina Nikolayevna

17657/13

Poloznyak v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Poloznyak Valeriy Volodymyrovych

17664/13

Petrushevskiy v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Petrushevskiy Zaven Anatolyevich

17679/13

Sneguryova v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Sneguryova Zinayida Mykolayivna

17732/13

Belyayeva v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Belyayeva Kateryna Gnativna

17788/13

Antonyuk v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Antonyuk Grygoriy Pavlovych

17806/13

Titarenko v. Ukraine

22/02/2013

Titarenko Vasiliy Ivanovich

Bychkovskyy Vladyslav Mykolayovych

17808/13

Kishchenko v. Ukraine

22/02/2013

Kishchenko Lyubov Mykhaylovna

Bychkovskyy Vladyslav Mykolayovych

17810/13

Lutsiv v. Ukraine

22/02/2013

Lutsiv Yevgeniy Mikhaylovych

Bychkovskyy Vladyslav Mykolayovych

17815/13

Belonosov v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Belonosov Pavel Ivanovich

17826/13

Stoletnyev v. Ukraine

14/12/2012

Stoletnyev Volodymyr Vasylyovych

Bardin Oleksandr Ivanovych

17900/13

Tolkach v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Tolkach Sergey Pavlovich

17959/13

Dashko v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Dashko Yuriy Aleksandrovich

17960/13

Ivashchenko v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Ivashchenko Nadiya Mykolayivna

17966/13

Kupreychuk v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Kupreychuk Valentyna Sergiyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

18053/13

Grygorus v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Grygorus Oksana Vasylivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

18056/13

Baranets v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Baranets Vasyl Grygorovych

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

18078/13

Levkovskaya v. Ukraine

02/03/2013

Levkovskaya Valentina Nikolayevna

18083/13

Fedorenko v. Ukraine

02/03/2013

Fedorenko Sergey Fedorovich

18113/13

Pavlenko v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Pavlenko Mykola Pavlovych

18116/13

Lugovska v. Ukraine

26/02/2013

Lugovska Lyubov Volodymyrivna

18150/13

Zhovnirenko v. Ukraine

30/05/2012

Zhovnirenko Igor Yuriyovych

18163/13

Kobylynska v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Kobylynska Tetyana Mykhaylivna

18168/13

Nikolaychuk v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Nikolaychuk Nelya Andriyivna

18178/13

Tsarapora v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Tsarapora Ruslan Mykhaylovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

18189/13

Selyukov v. Ukraine

26/02/2013

Selyukov Ivan Ivanovych

18190/13

Fedorenko v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Fedorenko Tetyana Volodymyrivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

18208/13

Ablamska v. Ukraine

14/02/2013

Ablamska Kateryna Yuriyivna

18226/13

Kolvakh v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Kolvakh Konstantin Alekseyevich

18232/13

Gerasymenko v. Ukraine

12/06/2011

Gerasymenko Vitaliy Ivanovych

18286/13

Tishchenko v. Ukraine

26/06/2012

Tishchenko Svetlana Nikolayevna

18325/13

Khavaldzhi v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Khavaldzhi Mykhaylo Andriyovych

18331/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Bondarenko Vladimir Vladimirovich

18336/13

Varichenko v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Varichenko Svetlana Filippovna

18342/13

Gresh v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Gresh Viktor Vladimirovich

18348/13

Kuznetsov v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Kuznetsov Aleksandr Alekseevich

18349/13

Leonevskaya v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Leonevskaya Lina Semenovna

18353/13

Luzhina v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Luzhyna Larysa Vasylivna

18366/13

Potapov v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Potapov Vitaliy Mykhaylovich

18369/13

Reshetnyak v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Reshetnyak Olena Mykolayivna

18392/13

Len v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Len Grygoriy Kuzmych

18408/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

25/01/2013

Bondarenko Anatoliy Petrovych

18413/13

Pavlovskyy v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Pavlovskyy Mykola Georgiyovych

18432/13

Rudyuk v. Ukraine

23/01/2013

Rudyuk Mykhaylo Grygorovych

18481/13

Gayevska v. Ukraine

23/02/2013

Gayevska Inna Mykolayivna

18488/13

Plekhanova v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Plekhanova Lyudmyla Borysivna

18501/13

Didych v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Didych Galyna Ivanivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

18507/13

Petruk v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Petruk Mykola Vasylyovych

18512/13

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

03/03/2013

Nevmerzhytska Nadiya Arsentiyivna

18518/13

Porokhnya v. Ukraine

07/11/2012

Porokhnya Mykola Petrovych

18530/13

Davydov v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Davydov Vilian Volodymyrovych

18570/13

Pryshchepa v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Pryshchepa Lyubov Volodymyrivna

18572/13

Kolomoyets v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Kolomoyets Vitaliy Mykolayovych

18575/13

Zheronkin v. Ukraine

12/02/2013

Zheronkin Sergey Ivanovich

18577/13

Nosal v. Ukraine

06/02/2013

Nosal Vyacheslav Oleksiyovych

18583/13

Deyneko v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Deyneko Nikolay Ivanovich

18607/13

Kostina v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Kostina Mykola Vasylyovych

18689/13

Dyrektorenko v. Ukraine

28/02/2013

Dyrektorenko Anatoliy Vasylyovych

18694/13

Zhidkov v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Zhidkov Vyacheslav Borisovich

Kolesnikov Vladimir Anatolyevich

18724/13

Pashynska v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Pashynska Olga Fedorivna

18727/13

Romanenko v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Romanenko Volodymyr Mykhaylovych

Panchuk Volodymyr Mykhaylovych

18749/13

Zhigun v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Zhigun Galina Aleksandrovna

18764/13

Dobronos v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Dobronos Vladimir Petrovich

18784/13

Khavaldzhi v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Khavaldzhi Mykhaylo Andriyovych

18789/13

Kordun v. Ukraine

26/02/2013

Kordun Nelya Dmytrivna

18815/13

Kutyshenko v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Kutyshenko Yevgen Arsenovych

18822/13

Pashynskyy v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Pashynskyy Mykola Ivanovych

18825/13

Vaskivskyy v. Ukraine

02/03/2013

Vaskivskyy Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

18828/13

Vaskivska v. Ukraine

02/03/2013

Vaskivska Svitlana Volodymyrivna

19086/13

Derkach v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Derkach Yuriy Vladimirovich

19147/13

Grobovod v. Ukraine

25/02/2013

Grobovod Gennadiy Ivanovich

19149/13

Kondratyuk v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Kondratyuk Arkadiy Oleksiyovych

19163/13

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Nevmerzhytska Mariya Vasylivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

19166/13

Shpakivskyy v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Shpakivskyy Mykhaylo Mykolayovych

19171/13

Khirsa v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Khirsa Nadiya Makarivna

19197/13

Lisnichenko v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Lisnichenko Pavel Alekseyevich

19216/13

Grobovod v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Grobovod Gennadiy Ivanovich

19220/13

Tkachov v. Ukraine

27/02/2013

Tkachov Kostyantyn Mykhaylovych

19226/13

Makarenko v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Makarenko Ganna Tsezarivna

19233/13

Andreychenko v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Andreychenko Nikolay Andreyevich

19234/13

Storozhuk v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Storozhuk Nina Mykolayivna

19238/13

Storozhuk v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Storozhuk Mykola Yevgenovych

19338/13

Bazylchuk v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Bazylchuk Mykola Volodymyrovych

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

19340/13

Bazylchuk v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Bazylchuk Tetyana Volodymyrivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

19363/13

Orlyk v. Ukraine

23/02/2013

Orlyk Yuriy Mykolayovych

19417/13

Lyakh v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Lyakh Mykola Ivanovych

19426/13

Bogun v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Bogun Roman Yaroslavovych

19484/13

Remezov v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Remezov Mykola Ivanovych

19501/13

Kostur v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Kostur Borys Andriyovych

19536/13

Energosoyuz, Nvo v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Energosoyuz, Nvo

19716/13

Sergiychuk v. Ukraine

15/02/2013

Sergiychuk Pavlo Stepanovych

19841/13

Semenyuk v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Semenyuk Polyna Petrivna

19937/13

Yarova v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Yarova Yeva Myronivna

19969/13

Vydashenko v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Vydashenko Ivan Anatoliyovych

19995/13

Matulevich v. Ukraine

10/03/2013

Matulevich Vladimir Ivanovich

20017/13

Balyuk v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Balyuk Mykhaylo Grygorovych

Klopkov Sergiy Mykolayovych

20023/13

Navalnyy v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Navalnyy Ivan Borysovych

20025/13

Martyan v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Martyan Sergiy Grygorovych

20029/13

Popruga v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Popruga Vitaliy Oleksandrovych

Klopkov Sergiy Mykolayovych

20109/13

Bilan v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Bilan Leonid Mykhaylovych

20116/13

Demydenko v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Demydenko Tetyana Adamivna

20117/13

Kobylynskyy v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Kobylynskyy Sergiy Mykhaylovych

20207/13

Gurynchuk v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Gurynchuk Ganna Mykolayivna

20210/13

Demydchuk v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Demydchuk Nadiya Mykhaylivna

20211/13

Melnychuk v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Melnychuk Anatoliy Volodymyrovych

20231/13

Byelyenkyy v. Ukraine

05/02/2013

Byelyenkyy Volodymyr Grygorovych

20233/13

Melnyk v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Melnyk Viktor Viktorovych

20251/13

Rudenok v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Rudenok Aleksey Vasilyevich

20258/13

Kobylynska v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Kobylynska Olga Mykhaylivna

20260/13

Tsistan v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Tsistan Aleksandr Anatolyevich

20262/13

Tsistan v. Ukraine

29/01/2013

Tsistan Aleksandr Anatolyevich

20264/13

Tsistan v. Ukraine

10/02/2013

Tsistan Aleksandr Anatolyevich

20270/13

Antonenko v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Antonenko Sergiy Andriyovych

20289/13

Manko v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Manko Yakiv Fedorovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

20296/13

Babenko v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Babenko Mykola Vasylovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

20304/13

Vidinyeyeva v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Vidinyeyeva Oksana Petrivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

20307/13

Movchan v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Movchan Volodymyr Semenovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

20312/13

Gomlyakov v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Gomlyakov Valeriy Ivanovich

20313/13

Gomlyakov v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Gomlyakov Valeriy Ivanovich

20314/13

Gomlyakov v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Gomlyakov Valeriy Ivanovich

20319/13

Sydorchuk v. Ukraine

01/03/2013

Sydorchuk Mykola Mefodiyovych

20374/13

Mozgova v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Mozgova Nina Petrivna

20391/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Shevchenko Viktor Prokopovych

Khrapach Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

20425/13

Andreyev v. Ukraine

13/03/2013

Andreyev Valeriy Vsevolodovich

20656/13

Nosal v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Nosal Vyacheslav Oleksiyovych

20718/13

Pyatybrat v. Ukraine

06/03/2013

Pyatybrat Larysa Petrivna

20723/13

Kurbanova v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Kurbanova Elina Aleksandrovna

20724/13

Sereda v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Sereda Igor Mikhaylovich

20733/13

Konoplev v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Konoplev Leonid Savelyevich

20740/13

Garashchuk v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Garashchuk Nataliya Sergiyivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

20839/13

Dvoryanchikova v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Dvoryanchikova Nataliya Oleksandrivna

20843/13

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

07/03/2013

Kovalenko Mykola Pavlovych

20863/13

Korolchuk v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Korolchuk Mykhaylo Adamovych

20884/13

Rybka v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Rybka Petro Grygorovych

20894/13

Kroshka v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Kroshka Viktor Oleksiyovych

20895/13

Kadkalenko v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Kadkalenko Vitaliy Stanislavovych

Kryvytskyy Sergiy Mykolayovych

20986/13

Garapyuk v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

21060/13

Zdorenko v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Zdorenko Stanislav Mykolayovych

21111/13

Radchenko v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Radchenko Yuriy Anatolyevich

21222/13

Melnychuk v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Melnychuk Anatoliy Volodymyrovych

21243/13

Shulga v. Ukraine

10/03/2013

Shulga Viktoriya Mykolayivna

21280/13

Sereda v. Ukraine

17/03/2013

Sereda Lyudmila Borysivna

21357/13

Rybin v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Rybin Mykola Vasylyovych

21386/13

Denisenko v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Denisenko Aleksey Ivanovich

21397/13

Batrak v. Ukraine

01/02/2013

Batrak Volodymyr Vasylovych

21627/13

Adonin v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Adonin Vladimir Yegorovich

21630/13

Uzhva v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Uzhva Iryna Vasylivna

21682/13

Chuliy v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Chuliy Oleksandr Ivanovych

21703/13

Grynevych v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Grynevych Lyubov Mykolayivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

21717/13

Fedorova v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Fedorova Nadiya Mykolayivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

21794/13

Melnik v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Melnik Tamara Ivanovna

21813/13

Didkivska v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Didkivska Nataliya Ivanivna

21818/13

Kolikhov v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Kolikhov Dmitriy Fedorovich

21837/13

Golyonko v. Ukraine

12/03/2013

Golyonko Lidiya Yukhymivna

21888/13

Kurochka v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Kurochka Nataliya Grygorivna

21902/13

Golubyatnikov v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Golubyatnikov Sergey Dmitriyevich

21912/13

Moroz v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Moroz Yevgeniy Mykolayovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

21980/13

Vlasenko v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Vlasenko Mykola Dmytrovych

22025/13

Levytska v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Levytska Olena Stepanivna

22041/13

Popsuy v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Popsuy Roman Mykhaylovych

22075/13

Anokhin v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Anokhin Sergey Mitrofanovich

22082/13

Lakhman v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Lakhman Grygoriy Vasylyovych

22204/13

Pidgorodetska v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Pidgorodetska Nataliya Vasylivna

22210/13

Levchenko v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Levchenko Valeriy Ivanovych

22241/13

Mikhaylichenko v. Ukraine

21/01/2013

Mikhaylichenko Sergey Anatolyevich

22458/13

Bykova v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Bykova Tetyana Ivanivna

22462/13

Pakhomenko v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Pakhomenko Yuriy Vladimirovich

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

22483/13

Tkachenko v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Tkachenko Anatoliy Grygorovych

22487/13

Zyma v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Zyma Yuriy Vasylyovych

22526/13

Syelin v. Ukraine

13/03/2013

Syelin Igor Ivanovych

22563/13

Zasimovych v. Ukraine

22/03/2013

Zasimovych Olga Ivanivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

22615/13

Dufenyuk v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Dufenyuk Dmytro Fedorovych

22660/13

Lisnichenko v. Ukraine

11/02/2013

Lisnichenko Pavel Alekseyevich

22661/13

Bilokon v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Bilokon Oleksandr Petrovych

22901/13

Belonosov v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Belonosov Aleksey Ivanovich

22949/13

Guz v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Guz Volodymyr Ivanovych

23024/13

Nikitina v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Nikitina Lidiya Arkadiyivna

23057/13

Galushkin v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Galushkin Nikolay Linitovich

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

23091/13

Gafiychuk v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Gafiychuk Ganna Petrivna

23111/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

23/03/2013

Shevchenko Aleksey Ivanovich

23114/13

Kozachenko v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Kozachenko Vyacheslav Mykolayovych

23223/13

Tkach v. Ukraine

22/03/2013

Tkach Leonid Grygorovych

23253/13

Lyubchak v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Lyubchak Vitaliy Anatoliyovych

23256/13

Shevchuk v. Ukraine

22/03/2013

Shevchuk Petro Volodymyrovych

23461/13

Adonin v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Adonin Vladimir Yegorovich

23548/13

Sergiyenko v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Sergiyenko Viktor Petrovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

23559/13

Belanov v. Ukraine

29/03/2013

Belanov Mykola Oleksiyovych

23635/13

Bondar v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Bondar Vitaliy Fedorovych

23690/13

Mokyeyev v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Mokyeyev Kostyantyn Igorovych

Semashko Dmytro Mykolayovych

23730/13

Gavrylovskyy v. Ukraine

26/03/2013

Gavrylovskyy Ivan Mykolayovych

23757/13

Sakun v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Sakun Svetlana Vasilyevna

23764/13

Sodolynska v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Sodolynska Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

23792/13

Trynyeyev v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Trynyeyev Oleksandr Albertovych

23797/13

Kuznetsov v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Kuznetsov Dmytro Mykhaylovych

23800/13

Rebryk v. Ukraine

04/02/2013

Rebryk Mykhaylo Ivanovych

23807/13

Tokarev v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Tokarev Vyacheslav Pavlovich

23897/13

Shytikov v. Ukraine

14/01/2013

Shytikov Oleg Vasylyovych

23952/13

Zakharenko v. Ukraine

05/03/2013

Zakharenko Svitlana Anatoliyivna

24021/13

Panzhar v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Panzhar Nikolay Zakharovich

24029/13

Strilchuk v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Strilchuk Valentin Anatoliyevich

24038/13

Kurbanova v. Ukraine

11/03/2013

Kurbanova Elina Aleksandrovna

24050/13

Zolotareva v. Ukraine

18/03/2013

Zolotareva Tamara Petrovna

24072/13

Skrypnichenko v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Skrypnichenko Volodymyr Ivanovych

24089/13

Veklych v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Veklych Sergiy Ivanovych

24123/13

Nesterenko v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Nesterenko Olga Vyacheslavivna

24138/13

Mamchur v. Ukraine

13/03/2013

Mamchur Yuriy Leontiyovych

24143/13

Dumynska v. Ukraine

29/03/2013

Dumynska Lyudmyla Mykhaylivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

24222/13

Ushakov v. Ukraine

23/03/2013

Ushakov Aleksandr Dmitriyevich

24224/13

Gorskyy v. Ukraine

26/03/2013

Gorskyy Oleksandr Oleksandrovych

24227/13

Butenko v. Ukraine

29/03/2013

Butenko Nina Trokhymivna

24269/13

Golubyatnikov v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Golubyatnikov Sergey Dmitriyevich

24272/13

Tsesarenko v. Ukraine

29/03/2013

Tsesarenko Olga Borysivna

Khrapach Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

24347/13

Pashko v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Pashko Svitlana Mykhaylivna

24354/13

Nesterenko v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Nesterenko Mariya Savivna

24372/13

Karplyuk v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Karplyuk Viktor Ivanovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

24374/13

Slyusarchuk v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Slyusarchuk Anatoliy Vasylyovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

24395/13

Sytnik v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Sytnik Mykola Petrovych

24429/13

Voronkova v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Voronkova Lyudmila Aleksandrovna

24504/13

Klymchuk v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Klymchuk Petro Petrovych

24547/13

Savych v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Savych Gennadiy Oleksandrovych

24551/13

Zavarzin v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Zavarzin Sergey Ivanovich

24579/13

Tychynskyy v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Tychynskyy Oleksiy Volodymyrovych

24601/13

Moshchnyy v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Moshchnyy Yuriy Mykolayovych

24603/13

Karplyuk v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Karplyuk Viktor Ivanovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

24604/13

Karplyuk v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Karplyuk Viktor Ivanovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

24622/13

Ilchenko v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Ilchenko Oleksiy Ivanovych

24662/13

Knyazyev v. Ukraine

16/03/2013

Knyazyev Pavlo Ivanovych

24679/13

Mishchenko v. Ukraine

15/03/2013

Mishchenko Andriy Viktorovych

24722/13

Stryzhak v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Stryzhak Volodymyr Volodymyrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

24727/13

Zanizdra v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Zanizdra Mykhaylo Anatoliyovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

24731/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Shevchenko Anatoliy Fedosiyovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

24739/13

Ivanyuk v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Ivanyuk Petro Dmytrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

24747/13

Kotyash v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Kotyash Mykola Vasylyovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

24760/13

Pyrogova v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Pyrogova Galyna Vasylivna

24770/13

Konovalchuk v. Ukraine

03/04/2013

Konovalchuk Vasyl Danylovych

24824/13

Maymurenko v. Ukraine

26/03/2013

Maymurenko Sergey Ivanovich

24861/13

Knysh v. Ukraine

14/03/2013

Knysh Aleksandr Dmitriyevich

24868/13

Zaverukha v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Zaverukha Alla Vladimirovna

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

24870/13

Zaverukha v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Zaverukha Vladimir Yevstafyevich

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

24900/13

Savchuk v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Savchuk Ganna Ivanivna

24951/13

Kibkalo v. Ukraine

03/04/2013

Kibkalo Sergey Dmitriyevich

24953/13

Ruban v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Ruban Vasyl Ivanovych

24957/13

Korol v. Ukraine

03/04/2013

Korol Roman Volodymyrovych

25024/13

Gelya v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Gelya Leonid Anatoliyovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

25086/13

Ivanova v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Ivanova Kateryna Vasylivna

25164/13

Stotska v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Stotska Svitlana Volodymyrivna

25171/13

Stepanova v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Stepanova Mariya Ivanivna

25203/13

Shyshka v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Shyshka Ivan Petrovych

25215/13

Kuznetsov v. Ukraine

29/03/2013

Kuznetsov Dmytro Mykhaylovych

25267/13

Lazareva v. Ukraine

09/04/2013

Lazareva Lyubov Grygorivna

25359/13

Spinov v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Spinov Volodymyr Ivanovych

25378/13

Nechitaylo v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Nechitaylo Nikolay Andreyevich

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

25389/13

Turbal v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Turbal Valentyna Ivanivna

25483/13

Zayarnyuk v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Zayarnyuk Nina Volodymyrivna

25544/13

Prokopchuk v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Prokopchuk Ivan Andriyovych

25562/13

Savelyev v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Savelyev Fedir Ivanovych

25650/13

Mostovska v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Mostovska Nelya Georgiyivna

25676/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Kovalchuk Svitlana Ivanivna

25698/13

Fedorchuk v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Fedorchuk Andriy Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

25708/13

Levkivska v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Levkivska Nataliya Sergiyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

25782/13

Grechanyy v. Ukraine

06/04/2013

Grechanyy Vitaliy Ivanovych

25825/13

Ovrashko v. Ukraine

10/04/2013

Ovrashko Oleg Anatoliyovych

25863/13

Fokin v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Fokin Sergey Nikolayevich

25945/13

Len v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Len Mykola Vasylyovych

25947/13

Khodakivska v. Ukraine

28/03/2013

Khodakivska Olga Arkadiyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

25982/13

Bolyura v. Ukraine

19/03/2013

Bolyura Nikolay Sergeyevich

Kovalenko Vladimir Petrovich

25993/13

Barynova v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Barynova Lyubov Ivanivna

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

26008/13

Barynov v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Barynov Volodymyr Vasylyovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

26010/13

Savytskyy v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Savytskyy Stanislav Oleksiyovych

26018/13

Mashanin v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Mashanin Viktor Petrovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

26023/13

Bespalko v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Bespalko Mykola Vasylyovych

26068/13

Gavrylovskyy v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Gavrylovskyy Oleksandr Mykhaylovych

26080/13

Chernega v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Chernega Vladimir Adamovich

26116/13

Yaltunovskyy v. Ukraine

10/04/2013

Yaltunovskyy Mykola Borysovych

26173/13

Kornichenko v. Ukraine

03/04/2013

Kornichenko Viktor Grygorovych

26175/13

Shevchuk v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Shevchuk Mariya Pavlivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

26229/13

Poznanska v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Poznanska Galyna Mykolayivna

26247/13

Poznanskyy v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Poznanskyy Mykhaylo Antonovych

26545/13

Lyutaya v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Lyutaya Olga Ivanovna

26564/13

Berezynets v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Berezynets Ivan Markelovych

26647/13

Rafalska v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Rafalska Oksana Ivanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

26668/13

Zdorenko v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Zdorenko Yuriy Vasylyovych

26681/13

Shyshonok v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Shyshonok Volodymyr Petrovych

26709/13

Chycheba v. Ukraine

09/04/2013

Chycheba Galyna Ivanivna

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

26749/13

Podzirov v. Ukraine

26/03/2013

Podzirov Anatoliy Petrovich

26750/13

Khodosov v. Ukraine

01/04/2013

Khodosov Igor Anatolyevich

26757/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Kovalchuk Mykola Mykolayovych

26765/13

Isayeva v. Ukraine

01/09/2009

Isayeva Marina Nikolayevna

26766/13

Andrusenko v. Ukraine

31/01/2013

Andrusenko Nina Romanivna

26773/13

Koguta v. Ukraine

13/04/2013

Koguta Vasyl Mykolayovych

Savchenko Volodymyr Mykolayovych

26777/13

Nychyporchuk v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Nychyporchuk Mariya Fedorivna

26818/13

Bondarchuk v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Bondarchuk Mykola Tytonovych

26881/13

Rafalska v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Rafalska Oksana Ivanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

26892/13

Asyeyev v. Ukraine

23/03/2013

Asyeyev Viktor Ivanovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

26903/13

Spodaryeva v. Ukraine

30/03/2013

Spodaryeva Vira Oleksandrivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

26947/13

Karmalit v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Karmalit Vasyl Ivanovych

27047/13

Neyilyk v. Ukraine

13/04/2013

Neyilyk Yevgeniya Ivanivna

27057/13

Sulimenko v. Ukraine

30/03/2013

Sulimenko Lidiya Mykolayivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27071/13

Mudrevskyy v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Mudrevskyy Oleksandr Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27242/13

Paritet Ltd, Tov Vkp v. Ukraine

17/08/2012

Paritet Ltd, Tov Vkp

27313/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Kovalchuk Mykhaylo Stepanovych

27325/13

Pinchuk v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Pinchuk Vasyl Ivanovych

27343/13

Pavlenko v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Pavlenko Larysa Volodymyrivna

27355/13

Payentko v. Ukraine

02/04/2013

Payentko Vasyl Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27411/13

Mashkov v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Mashkov Viktor Ivanovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27429/13

Nesterenko v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Nesterenko Larysa Adamivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27441/13

Demchenko v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Demchenko Anatoliy Ivanovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27501/13

Lapavets v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Lapavets Yevgeniya Mykolayivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27504/13

Zubko v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Zubko Grygoriy Dmytrovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27506/13

Lapavets v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Lapavets Mykhayylo Ivanovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27507/13

Yarotska v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Yarotska Valentyna Grygorivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

27511/13

Dragalchuk v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Dragalchuk Igor Oleksiyovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27512/13

Zubko v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Zubko Lyudmyla Adamivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27534/13

Germanchuk v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Germanchuk Larysa Grygorivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27549/13

Dzhygora v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Dzhygora Pavlo Valentynovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

27551/13

Levkivska v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Levkivska Nadiya Ivanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27571/13

Badyul v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Badyul Viktoriya Oleksandrivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

27591/13

Yastremskyy v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Yastremskyy Sergiy Mykolayovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27594/13

Razumovska v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Razumovska Nadiya Mykolayivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27597/13

Grubyy v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Grubyy Vasyl Stepanovych

27598/13

Kichuk v. Ukraine

20/02/2013

Kichuk Dmytro Dmytrovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

27622/13

Golyachenko v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Golyachenko Petro Mykolayovych

27634/13

Demchuk v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Demchuk Volodymyr Volodymyrovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27636/13

Mozharivska v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Mozharivska Tetyana Mykolayivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

27689/13

Yegorova v. Ukraine

08/04/2013

Yegorova Raisa Ivanovna

27768/13

Loban v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Loban Vladimir Matveyevich

28023/13

Suprunets v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Suprunets Lidiya Oleksiyivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

28096/13

Zinchenko v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Zinchenko Mykola Andriyovych

28154/13

Makarenko v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Makarenko Valeriy Pavlovych

28157/13

Rogachov v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Rogachov Mykola Grygorovych

28279/13

Poznanskyy v. Ukraine

19/04/2013

Poznanskyy Vasyl Mykolayovych

28338/13

Porokhnya v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Porokhnya Zhanna Arkadyevna

28343/13

Smirnov v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Smirnov Vyacheslav Viktorovich

28352/13

Davydenko v. Ukraine

10/04/2013

Davydenko Kateryna Mykhaylivna

28377/13

Dranovskyy v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Dranovskyy Volodymyr Vasylyovych

28585/13

Yavorovenko v. Ukraine

04/08/2011

Yavorovenko Mykola Mykhaylovych

28589/13

Yavorovenko v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Yavorovenko Mykola Mykhaylovych

28607/13

Chub v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Chub Stanislav Mykolayovych

28628/13

Koval v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Koval Zinaida Sergeyevna

28686/13

Burdyak v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Burdyak Nataliya Yosypivna

28697/13

Podroyko v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Podroyko Andriy Vasylyovych

28700/13

Babin v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Babin Yevgeniy Ivanovych

28736/13

Gushanska v. Ukraine

21/04/2013

Gushanska Galyna Mykolayivna

28863/13

Donets v. Ukraine

04/03/2013

Donets Mariya Opanasivna
Donets Fedir Dmytrovych

28904/13

Sergiyenko v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Sergiyenko Viktor Petrovych

28920/13

Polyvyanyy v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Polyvyanyy Viktor Vasylyovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

28939/13

Komyshan v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Komyshan Volodymyr Viktorovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

29011/13

Pronin v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Pronin Sergiy Viktorovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

29019/13

Zaikin v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Zaikin Mykola Ivanovych

29022/13

Zmazhenko v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Zmazhenko Yuriy Stepanovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

29037/13

Pershko v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Pershko Tetyana Sergiyivna

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

29050/13

Zaklyuka v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Zaklyuka Kateryna Andriyivna

29064/13

Mandryk v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Mandryk Vadym Valeriyovych

29107/13

Plys v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Plys Mykola Oleksiyovych

29152/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Kovalchuk Stepan Sergiyovych

29215/13

Levchenko v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Levchenko Volodymyr Grygorovych

Styopochkin Oleg Stepanovych

29218/13

Vasylenko v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Vasylenko Valentyna Pylypivna

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

29250/13

Yavorovenko v. Ukraine

21/01/2010

Yavorovenko Mykola Mykhaylovych

29323/13

Mulyar v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Mulyar Larisa Ivanovna

29354/13

Levkivska v. Ukraine

16/04/2013

Levkivska Nadiya Vasylivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

29365/13

Biryukov v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Biryukov Eduard Vladimirovich

29392/13

Skopik v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Skopik Olena Oleksandrivna

29407/13

Pypchenko v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Pypchenko Leonid Ivanovich

29440/13

Bondarenko v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Bondarenko Zinaida Andreyevna

29465/13

Ukrenergobudmekhanizatsiya, Vat v. Ukraine

10/04/2013

Ukrenergobudmekhanizatsiya, Vat

Leskov Valeriy Petrovych

29687/13

Kholyavchuk v. Ukraine

15/04/2013

Kholyavchuk Vasyl Mykolayovych

29753/13

Ilyinets v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Ilyinets Yosyp Avramovych

29787/13

Melyokhina v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Melyokhina Svitlana Mykolayivna

29792/13

Blyznyuk v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Blyznyuk Volodymyr Stepanovych

29815/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Kovalchuk Sergiy Stepanovych

29818/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Kovalchuk Sergiy Stepanovych

29868/13

Tagan v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Tagan Mykhaylo Mykolayovych

29873/13

Orlov v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Orlov Vitaliy Anatolyevich

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

29964/13

Grytsayuk v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Grytsayuk Oleksiy Petrovych

30063/13

Khmelnytska Universalna Kompaniya, Tov v. Ukraine

11/04/2013

Khmelnytska Universalna Kompaniya, Tov

30087/13

Zabelin v. Ukraine

20/03/2013

Zabelin Vyacheslav Nikolayevich

30218/13

Rybinskyy v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Rybinskyy Leonid Fedosovych

30219/13

Kalashnykov v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Kalashnykov Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych

30236/13

Shvedov v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Shvedov Nikolay Dmitriyevich

30237/13

Kobylynska v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Kobylynska Galyna Anatoliyivna

30241/13

Gavrylovskyy v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Gavrylovskyy Sergiy Oleksandrovych

30253/13

Dzhagunov v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Dzhagunov Borys Borysovych

30255/13

Shelest v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Shelest Oleksiy Vasylyovych

30257/13

Budyshevska v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Budyshevska Nadiya Anatoliyivna

30367/13

Polyakov v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Polyakov Roman Volodymyrovych

30369/13

Yushchenko v. Ukraine

27/04/2013

Yushchenko Nelya Viktorivna

30439/13

Slabinskyy v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Slabinskyy Mykola Oleksandrovych

30453/13

Gubin v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Gubin Grygoriy Ivanovych

30518/13

Momotok v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Momotok Mariya Vasylivna

30570/13

Khokhych v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Khokhych Mykola Kostyantynovych

30622/13

Dobychin v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Dobychin Oleg Sergeyevich

Bychkovskiy Vladislav Nikolayevich

30656/13

Gychko v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Gychko Yuriy Pavlovych

30769/13

Apryshko v. Ukraine

25/03/2013

Apryshko Sergiy Mykolayovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

30823/13

Prokhortsov v. Ukraine

05/04/2013

Prokhortsov Oleksandr Mykolayovych

30885/13

Shostak v. Ukraine

30/03/2013

Shostak Olena Dmytrivna

31007/13

Erlayt, Tov v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Erlayt, Tov

Lukyanova Liliya Leonidivna

31081/13

Lezhavska v. Ukraine

19/04/2013

Lezhavska Paraskoviya Ivanivna

31083/13

Gerasimov v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Gerasimov Viktor Ivanovich

31114/13

Pasmurtsev v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Pasmurtsev Vadym Volodymyrovych

Bardin Oleksandr Ivanovych

31133/13

Malamura v. Ukraine

03/05/2013

Malamura Aleksandr Vasilyevich

31140/13

Kanevska v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Kanevska Galyna Andriyivna

31141/13

Besarabchik v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Besarabchik Valentina Petrovna

31148/13

Krivolapchuk v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Krivolapchuk Nina Valeryevna

31152/13

Kichenko v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Kichenko Yuriy Dmytrovych

Bardin Oleksandr Ivanovych

31210/13

Tsybulyov v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Tsybulyov Ivan Ivanovych

31233/13

Mulivantseva v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Mulivantseva Inna Mykhaylivna

31254/13

Kopytina v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Kopytina Nadezhda Nikolayevna

31285/13

Mykhaylyk v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Mykhaylyk Volodymyr Kostyantynovych

31305/13

Biryukov v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Biryukov Eduard Vladimirovich

31339/13

Podkolzin v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Podkolzin Vasyl Petrovych

31370/13

Khrystych v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Khrystych Viktor Mykhaylovych

31473/13

Mitchenko v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Mitchenko Mykola Viktorovych

31513/13

Semenyuk v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Semenyuk Mykola Mykolayovych

31627/13

Kovalchuk v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Kovalchuk Kateryna Ivanivna

31646/13

Mazur v. Ukraine

27/04/2013

Mazur Oleg Mykolayovych

31657/13

Stepanyuk v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Stepanyuk Igor Kostyantynovych

31660/13

Koval v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Koval Aleksey Dmitriyevich

31668/13

Ovramenko v. Ukraine

21/04/2013

Ovramenko Nikolay Vasilyevich

31758/13

Lavrishchuk v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Lavrishchuk Yevdokiya Oleksiyivna

31823/13

Voytsekhivskyy v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Voytsekhivskyy Vasyl Yevgenovych

31837/13

Shemchuk v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Shemchuk Taras Vladimirovich

31870/13

Ushachov v. Ukraine

09/05/2013

Ushachov Viktor Andriyovych

31883/13

Avruka v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Avruka Valentyna Mykhaylivna

31893/13

Tymoshchuk v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Tymoshchuk Petro Zakharovych

31906/13

Voytenko v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Voytenko Vira Ivanivna

31915/13

Besaga v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Besaga Olga Petrivna

31927/13

Pavlova v. Ukraine

08/05/2013

Pavlova Sofiya Yakivna

31946/13

Khimich v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Khimich Igor Vasilyevich

32010/13

Mulivantseva v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Mulivantseva Inna Mykhaylivna

32025/13

Levinson v. Ukraine

27/03/2013

Levinson Sergiy Petrovych

32116/13

Dyadechko v. Ukraine

12/04/2013

Dyadechko Grygoriy Karlovych

32146/13

Popov v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Popov Valeriy Yuriyovych

32153/13

Puziy v. Ukraine

08/05/2013

Puziy Galyna Oleksandrivna

32166/13

Yakubenko v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Yakubenko Valeriy Markovych

32192/13

Andriyenko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Andriyenko Olga Yakivna

32195/13

Potrymay v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Potrymay Grygoriy Ivanovych

32229/13

Naumets v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Naumets Sonya Fedorivna

32230/13

Novikov v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Novikov Valeriy Afanasyevich

32288/13

Degtev v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Degtev Gennadiy Valentinovich

32292/13

Goshko v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Goshko Nina Frantsivna

32383/13

Slinchak v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Slinchak Nataliya Vasylivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

32388/13

Andrusenko v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Andrusenko Lyudmyla Mykolayivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

32476/13

Banduryst v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Banduryst Leonid Petrovych

32486/13

Stolyarskyy v. Ukraine

13/05/2013

Stolyarskyy Roman Dmytrovych

32492/13

Medvedskyy v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Medvedskyy Maksym Yuriyovych

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

32507/13

Vlasenko v. Ukraine

09/05/2013

Vlasenko Anatoliy Dmitriyevich

32549/13

Shitets v. Ukraine

18/02/2013

Shitets Vladimir Stepanovich

32553/13

Lugovska v. Ukraine

17/04/2013

Lugovska Lyubov Volodymyrivna

32565/13

Volobuyev v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Volobuyev Vladimir Nikolayevich

32603/13

Buyanov v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Buyanov Mykola Ivanovych

32672/13

Roskladka v. Ukraine

10/05/2013

Roskladka Sergiy Oleksandrovych

32735/13

Voropayev v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Voropayev Vitaliy Afanasyevich

32766/13

Tyshchenko v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Tyshchenko Yuliya Sergiyivna

32768/13

Prykhodko v. Ukraine

16/05/2013

Prykhodko Kostyantyn Petrovych

Opryshko Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna

32769/13

Yavorskyy v. Ukraine

16/05/2013

Yavorskyy Mykola Anatoliyovych

Opryshko Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna

32775/13

Ayrapetyan v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Ayrapetyan Svetlana Grigoryevna

32777/13

Drozd v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Drozd Mykola Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

32813/13

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Kravchenko Svitlana Yuriyivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

32821/13

Maksymov v. Ukraine

02/05/2013

Maksymov Oleksandr Sergiyovych

32824/13

Dmytrenko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Dmytrenko Olga Petrivna

32827/13

Tolochinets v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Tolochinets Aleksandr Mikhaylovich

Kolesnikov Vladimir Anatolyevich

32835/13

Skorostetskyy v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Skorostetskyy Sergiy Mykolayovych

32879/13

Dmytrenko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Dmytrenko Sergiy Grygorovych

32969/13

Troyan v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Troyan Petro Oleksiyovych

Shcherbatyuk Maksym Volodymyrovych

33085/13

Zhuravel v. Ukraine

08/05/2013

Zhuravel Nina Petrivna

33178/13

Lysytskyy v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Lysytskyy Yosyp Stanislavovych

33186/13

Veliyev v. Ukraine

03/05/2013

Veliyev Viktor Beytullayevych

33190/13

Moshkovska v. Ukraine

03/05/2013

Moshkovska Iryna Ivanivna

33200/13

Kryshta v. Ukraine

06/05/2013

Kryshta Mykola Vasylyovych

33201/13

Bashynskyy v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Bashynskyy Viktor Bronislavovych

33212/13

Yanishevskyy v. Ukraine

06/05/2013

Yanishevskyy Leonid Stanislavovych

33214/13

Maryutin v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Maryutin Sergey Yuryevich

33314/13

Drozd v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Drozd Mykola Ivanovych

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

33331/13

Shamov v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Shamov Vladimir Mikhaylovich

33340/13

Bondarchuk v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Bondarchuk Ivan Semenovych

33358/13

Bronevich v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Bronevich Olga Aleksandrovna

33363/13

Bronevich v. Ukraine

29/04/2013

Bronevich Olga Aleksandrovna

33369/13

Muratov v. Ukraine

01/05/2013

Muratov Vladimir Andreyevich

33429/13

Sargalogo v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Sargalogo Viktor Petrovych

33453/13

Grom v. Ukraine

20/05/2013

Grom Anatoliy Stanislavovych

33508/13

Zolotukhin v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Zolotukhin Oleksandr Volodymyrovych

33557/13

Pogoydash v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Pogoydash Vitaliy Ivanovych

33563/13

Galytska v. Ukraine

06/04/2013

Galytska Antonina Frantsivna

33578/13

Anishchenko v. Ukraine

16/05/2013

Anishchenko Nina Mykhaylivna

33600/13

Babyak v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Babyak Oleksiy Grygorovych

33606/13

Kulish v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Kulish Inna Yakivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

33609/13

Sadova v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Sadova Larysa Stepanivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

33613/13

Cherepenko v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Cherepenko Valentin Prokofyevich

33623/13

Knyazyev v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Knyazyev Anatoliy Vitaliyovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33628/13

Parfyonova v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Parfyonova Vira Mykhaylivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33630/13

Glukhov v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Glukhov Valeriy Oleksandrovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33632/13

Gorosov v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Gorosov Oleksandr Viktorovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33635/13

Glukhova v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Glukhova Valentyna Mykhaylivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33640/13

Knyazyev v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Knyazyev Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33647/13

Litovka v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Litovka Anatoliy Fedorovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33651/13

Litovka v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Litovka Nina Leonidivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33655/13

Dermanovska v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Dermanovska Elina Anatoliyivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33659/13

Romanko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Romanko Mykola Oleksandrovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33662/13

Piddubna v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Piddubna Tetyana Ivanivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33665/13

Piddubnyy v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Piddubnyy Viktor Oleksiyovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33669/13

Romanko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Romanko Kateryna Ivanivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33671/13

Nebelytsya v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Nebelytsya Viktor Vasylyovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33673/13

Nebelytsya v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Nebelytsya Zoya Leonidivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33684/13

Kuzmenko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Kuzmenko Sergiy Grygorovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33690/13

Kuzmenko v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Kuzmenko Tetyana Anatoliyivna

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33696/13

Zavgorodniy v. Ukraine

30/04/2013

Zavgorodniy Mykola Tykhonovych

Chosta Grygoriy Denysovych

33706/13

Tretyak v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Tretyak Ivan Yukhymovych

33759/13

Kupin v. Ukraine

21/03/2013

Kupin Oleksandr Mykhaylovych

33763/13

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Nevmerzhytska Nadiya Dmytrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

33769/13

Nevmerzhytska v. Ukraine

04/05/2013

Nevmerzhytska Nadiya Dmytrivna

Nevmerzhytska Tetyana Oleksandrivna

33799/13

Khodosov v. Ukraine

26/04/2013

Khodosov Igor Anatolyevich

33815/13

Klimov v. Ukraine

18/04/2013

Klimov Vladimir Anatolyevich

33843/13

Samborskyy v. Ukraine

27/04/2013

Samborskyy Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych

33866/13

Yurchenko v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Yurchenko Lyubov Vasylivna

33927/13

Yarmolenko v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Yarmolenko Leonid Grygorovych

33932/13

Shatelyuk v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Shatelyuk Alyona Yosypivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

33934/13

Plakhotniy v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Plakhotniy Ivan Mykolayovych

33984/13

Moshkivska v. Ukraine

18/05/2013

Moshkivska Galyna Mykolayivna

34066/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

25/04/2013

Shevchenko Yuriy Mykolayovych

34180/13

Kotsar v. Ukraine

06/05/2013

Kotsar Valentyna Vasylivna

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

34193/13

Avdzhy v. Ukraine

06/05/2013

Avdzhy Vitaliy Fedosiyovych

Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna

34335/13

Nosal v. Ukraine

07/05/2013

Nosal Vyacheslav Oleksiyovych

34362/13

Lavrenchuk v. Ukraine

23/04/2013

Lavrenchuk Galyna Tykhovnivna

34394/13

Yarynovskyy v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Yarynovskyy Viktor Vasylyovich

34653/13

Bulavko v. Ukraine

23/05/2013

Bulavko Mariya Ivanivna

34686/13

Pukhalska v. Ukraine

10/05/2013

Pukhalska Yadviga Gvydonivna

34784/13

Litvinov v. Ukraine

13/05/2013

Litvinov Viktor Sergeyevich

34836/13

Kostyuk v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Kostyuk Petr Ivanovich

34851/13

Oksenyuk v. Ukraine

13/05/2013

Oksenyuk Georgiy Mykhaylovych

34862/13

Fursov v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Fursov Yuriy Alekseyevich

34883/13

Litivinov v. Ukraine

28/04/2013

Litivinov Viktor Sergeyevich

34885/13

Lysenko v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Lysenko Klavdiya Mykhaylivna

34940/13

Chikmarev v. Ukraine

24/04/2013

Chikmarev Mikhail Dmitriyevich

34992/13

Puzanova v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Puzanova Svetlana Yakovlevna

35126/13

Brizhatyy v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Brizhatyy Vasiliy Maksimovich

35148/13

Nikitenko v. Ukraine

23/05/2013

Nikitenko Mykhaylo Mykolayovych

35162/13

Filonenko v. Ukraine

24/05/2013

Filonenko Ganna Anifatiyivna

35177/13

Marchenko v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Marchenko Viktor Volodymyrovych

35309/13

Putistin v. Ukraine

04/04/2013

Putistin Vladlen Mikhaylovich

35356/13

Zorik v. Ukraine

22/04/2013

Zorik Galina Ivanovna

Kalikhmanov Dmitriy Anatolyevich

35532/13

Graf v. Ukraine

27/05/2013

Graf Lyubov Ivanivna

35543/13

Sayutin v. Ukraine

17/05/2013

Sayutin Yuriy Gennadyevich

35563/13

Onyshchenko v. Ukraine

27/05/2013

Onyshchenko Mykola Petrovych

Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych

35608/13

Chub v. Ukraine

21/05/2013

Chub Aleksandr Vladimirovich

35635/13

Lyubymenko v. Ukraine

27/05/2013

Lyubymenko Svitlana Volodymyrivna

Garapyuk Sergiy Volodymyrovych

35638/13

Korsakov v. Ukraine

24/05/2013

Korsakov Oleksandr Mykolayovych

35640/13

Babych v. Ukraine

25/05/2013

Babych Valeriy Oleksandrovych

35642/13

Shevyakov v. Ukraine

13/05/2013

Shevyakov Aleksandr Fedorovich

35655/13

Titovets v. Ukraine

22/05/2013

Titovets Sergiy Oleksiyovych

35660/13

Filipov v. Ukraine

24/05/2013

Filipov Grygoriy Dmytrovych

Manzar Tetyana Volodymyrivna

35663/13

Averchenko v. Ukraine

21/05/2013

Averchenko Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych

35687/13

Shevchenko v. Ukraine

21/05/2013

Shevchenko Sergey Anatolyevich

35689/13

Boyprav v. Ukraine

22/05/2013

Boyprav Galyna Dmytrivna

35715/13

Mirko v. Ukraine

14/05/2013

Mirko Tetyana Vasylivna

35776/13

Khyzhnyak v. Ukraine

15/05/2013

Khyzhnyak Margaryta Dmytriyivna