FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 6155/05 and 22 others – see list appended)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 January 2014
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kyselyova and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in 23 applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).
2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.
3. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.
4. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in three applications. The Government requested the Court to strike the applications concerned out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the declarations. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government’s requests.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.
6. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. In view of the similarity of the applications set out in the Appendix in terms of the principal legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
8. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour, as specified in the Appendix, and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. Expressly or in substance they relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
9. The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 8 above) are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
10. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.
11. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 56-58 and 66-70, 15 October 2009) the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour. It also considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
12. In applications nos. 26359/06, 21116/07, 47023/07, 15730/08, 21181/08, 21701/08, 46205/08 and 33523/09 the applicants raised complaints concerning non-enforcement of other domestic court decisions. Having examined the parties’ submissions and the available material, the Court decided to reject these complaints as manifestly ill-founded as whole, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
13. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention, which the Court has examined carefully. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03 and 89 other applications, § 24, 6 June 2013; Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65656/11 and 249 other applications, § 19, 20 June 2013; Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 164 other applications, § 24, 20 June 2013) to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
16. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.
17. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to join the applications set out in the Appendix;
2. Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints admissible and the remainder of their applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that within three months the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant (or his or her estate) listed in the Appendix in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts, which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
6155/05
26/01/2005
Zhanna Mykhaylivna KYSELYOVA
30/07/1972
Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 03/06/2003 (in the light of Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 19/04/2002 and 09/10/2001)
38540/05
12/10/2005
1) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUK
07/10/1939
2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNA
12/051960
3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURIN
10/08/1965
4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINA
14/02/1965
5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINA
11/12/1954
6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINA
24/06/1952
7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKO
02/03/1947
8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVA
11/06/1980
9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOV
27/06/1965
10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVA
07/06/1977
11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOV
07/08/1946
12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYA
06/01/1956
13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVA
01/01/1949
1) Zoya Dmitriyevna PANCHUK
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
2) Irina Vladimirovna KRINITSYNA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
3) Sergey Vasilyevich LAKURIN
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
4) Irina Igorevna LAKURINA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
5) Tatyana Nikolayevna LESHEFINA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
6) Lyubov Afanasyevna MASHKINA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
7) Lyubov Andreyevna MOSKALENKO
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
8) Marina Petrovna VALIKOVA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
9) Sergey Anatolyevich VOLOVIKOV
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
10) Svetlana Viktorovna VOLOVIKOVA
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
11) Ivan Borisovich ZUBKOV
Torez Court, 25/05/2004
12) Lyudmila Danilovna GALINSKAYA
Shakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004
13) Olga Vasilyevna LEBEDEVA
Shakhtarsk Court, 27/05/2004
2468/06
10/12/2005
Natalya Ivanovna ABAKUMOVA
09/03/1969
Krasnograd Court, 05/06/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Regiolnal Court of Appeal on 14/08/2007
11534/06
06/03/2006
Anna Alekseyevna POLYAKOVA
01/01/1942
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich PIKULITSKIY
29/10/1939
Applicant 1:
1) Slovyansk Court, 31/07/2003
Applicant 2:
2) Slovyansk Court, 13/12/2002
26359/06
15/06/2006
Dmitriy Iosifovich TURLAKOV
01/05/1943
Kupyansk Court, 17/02/2006
12326/07
01/03/2007
Andrey Ivanovich KUPRIYENKO
01/01/1948
1) Khmilnyk Court, 11/08/1997 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005
2) Khmilnyk Court, 23/01/2001 in the light of the same court’s judgment of 22/09/2005
21116/07
27/04/2007
Grygoriy Grygorovych BODNAR
05/10/1947
Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court, 17/10/2005, quashed by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal on 11/02/2008
44334/07
27/09/2007
Tamara Mykolayivna DENYSYUK
10/07/1953
Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol, 12/01/2006
47023/07
13/10/2007
Anatoliy Vladimirovich RUDENKO
01/02/1949
Krasnyy Luch Court, 14/04/2004
6509/08
23/01/2008
Svetlana Vasilyevna ZHUKOVA
06/09/1962
Dmitriy Olegovich ZHUKOV
07/09/1986
Selydiv Court, 28/12/2004
11597/08
26/02/2008
Volodymyr Mykolayovych MELETSKYY
28/08/1951
1) Kozelets Court, 18/04/2005
2) Prydniprovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 28/02/2007
15730/08
Viktor Nikolayevich
VELICHKO
11/08/1964
Teplodar Court, 04/04/2007
21181/08
19/04/2008
Aleksandr Grigoryevich POPKOV
12/11/1944
1) Slovyansk Court, 24/11/2000
2) Slovyansk Court, 26/02/2001
3) Slovyansk Court, 10/10/2001
4) Slovyansk Court, 23/11/2004
5) Slovyansk Court, 12/12/2007
6) Slovyansk Court, 11/11/2008
21701/08
21/04/2008
KARINA, TOV
Lviv Commercial Court, 07/12/2006
37616/08
19/07/2008
Vyacheslav Semyonovich USOV
31/05/1941
1) Zhovti Vody Court, 06/10/2000
2) Zhovti Vody Court, 10/06/05 as amended by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal on 25/01/2006
38364/08
31/07/2008
KORTEKS, VAT
Zhytomyr Regional Commercial Court, 17/10/2005
46205/08
12/09/2008
Yaroslav Vasilyovych BOYCHUK
15/08/1948
1) Verkhovyna Court, 05/07/2004 as amended by the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal on 30/09/2004
2) Verhovyna Court, 26/03/2007
59374/08
20/11/2008
Gulyam Khabib AKBARI
07/01/1959
Illichivskyy District Court of Mariupol, 14/12/2006
18906/09
25/03/2009
Viktor Leonidovich KRYTSYN
22/09/1954
Sudak Court, 16/01/2006 as amended by judgment of the Crimea Court of Appeal on 20/09/2006
31367/09
02/06/2009
Vladimir Leonidovich KISHCHENKO
01/10/1953
Novogrodivka Court, 6/05/2006
33523/09
05/06/2009
Vitaliy Ivanovich DEMCHENKO
29/11/1953
Labour Disputes Commission, 17/12/1997
35246/10
12/05/2010
Igor Petrovych GAVRYLYUK
23/06/1952
Olena Petrivna KRYLAS
22/09/1952
1 applicant:
1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 20/03/2008,
2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 07/10/2008
3) Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 02/11/2009
2 applicant:
1) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 24/03/2008
2) Zhytomyr Circuit Administrative Court, 23/02/2009
3) Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr, 19/01/2010
42850/10
21/07/2010
Andriy Petrovych KITURA
02/10/1943
Sykhivskyy District Court of Lviv, 19/10/2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy