FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VINNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 13977/05 and 45 other applications)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 November 2013
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vinnik and others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in 46 applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals, one Lithuanian national (application no. 74608/10) and companies based in Ukraine. Their details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).
2. In applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 the applicants died in course of the proceedings before the Court. Their next-of-kin expressed the wish to pursue the applications.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.
4. The applications listed in the Appendix to the present judgment were communicated to the Government on various dates between 2008 and 2011.
5. On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues raised in seventeen applications. The Government requested the Court to strike the applications concerned out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of the declarations. The Court examined the declarations and decided to reject the Government’s request.
6. The Lithuanian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicant in application no. 74608/10 (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
7. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and labour disputes commissions delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became final and enforceable. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.
8. Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non-enforcement issues.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
9. In view of the similarity of the applications set out in the Appendix in terms of the principal legal issues raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION No. 36411/06 AS REGARDS THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH APPLICANTS
10. In application no. 36411/06 the applicants, members of the same family, complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of three judgments given exclusively in favour of the first applicant, Mr Petro Stanislavovych Abramov. The other applicants do not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in their favour and therefore they neither can complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of the alleged violations of their Convention rights.
11. It follows that insofar as application no. 36411/06 has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants it is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. This part of the application should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 AND 31562/13
12. The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in applications nos. 20748/09, 25288/10, 25762/10 and 31562/13 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants’ stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no. 19916/04, § 12, 14 December 2006).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
13. The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour, as specified in the Appendix, and about the lack of the effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. Expressly or in substance they relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
14. The Court notes that the above complaints (see paragraph 13 above) lodged by the applicants listed in the Appendix (by the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
15. The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.
16. Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, §§ 56-58 and 66-70, 15 October 2009) the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour. It also considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage created by such non-enforcement.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
17. Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention, which the Court has examined carefully. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
18. It follows that those complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
20. In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03 and 89 other applications, § 24, 6 June 2013; Tsibulko and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65656/11 and 249 other applications, § 19, 20 June 2013; Pysarskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 20397/07 and 164 other applications, § 24, 20 June 2013) to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants (to the first applicant in application no. 36411/06). This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
21. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.
22. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to join the applications set out in the Appendix;
2. Declares application no. 36411/06 partly inadmissible insofar as it has been lodged by the second, third and fourth applicants;
3. Declares the complaints of the applicants listed in the Appendix (the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints admissible and the remainder of their applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that within three months the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable, and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant (or his or her estate) listed in the Appendix (to the first applicant only in application no. 36411/06) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts, which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Relevant domestic decision
13977/05
15/02/2005
Tatiana Leonidovna VINNIK
03/10/1958
Lysychansk
1) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 15/05/2003
2) Labour disputes commission of the State enterprise "Lysychanskyy Remontno-Mekhanichnyy Zavod", 02/11/2004
36411/06
18/08/2006
Petro Stanislavovych ABRAMOV (“the first applicant”)[1]
06/01/1968
Poltava
1) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 12/08/2003, as amended by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 24/03/2004
2) Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 25/05/2005
3) Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 16/06/2005
23939/07
16/05/2007
Kostyantyn Volodymyrovych LOGUTOV
25/06/1976
Kyiv
Vyshgorod Court, 17/03/2005
55215/07
03/12/2007
Iryna Yuriyivna SHAPARENKO
08/12/1957
Tarashcha
Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, 21/10/2008
3001/08
04/01/2008
Inna Valeryivna MANOYLYK
07/11/1976
Chernigiv
Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09/07/2004
7932/08
28/01/2008
Valentina Ivanovna TARASOVA
13/10/1954
Yenakiyeve
Donetsk Regional Commercial Court, 23/07/2003 (no. 33/221?)
9091/08
05/02/2008
Vladimir Ivanovich BONDAR
09/06/1934
Odesa
Malynovskyy District Court of Odesa, 03/06/2003
34957/08
04/07/2008
Kateryna Dmytrivna KOLESNIKOVA
23/09/1950
Poltava
Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, 24/10/2006
42506/08
14/08/2008
Nina Mykolayivna KLINCHUK
28/10/1958
Korosten
Korosten Court, 24/02/2006
48488/08
15/07/2008
Vitaliy Pavlovych ONYSHCHAK
19/04/1952
Khrystynivka
Uman Court, 03/04/2008
17140/09
16/01/2009
Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO
05/01/1949
Vinnytsya
1) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 23/11/2006
2) Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 12/11/2008
3) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/12/2006
4) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007
(case no. 2-1772)
5) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 26/06/2007
(case no. 2-a-824-07)
6) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 22/07/2008
18168/09
22/03/2009
Sergey Panasovich IVASHCHENKO
20/10/1916
Andreyevo-Ivanovo
Mykolayivskyy District Court of the Odesa Region, 03/10/2007
20748/09
01/04/2009
Nikolay Ivanovich CHAYENKO
30/08/1947
Leninske
Sverdlovsk Court, 17/04/2007
23273/09
17/04/2009
Anatoliy Ivanovych MATSNEV
06/10/1950
Vinnytsya
Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 30/03/2007
23366/09
04/04/2009
Sergiy Viktorovych KISELYOV
28/09/1965
Vatutine
Vatutine Court, 03/08/2007, quashed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 20/05/2010
23702/09
16/04/2009
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SKUDIN
07/08/1986
Mariupol
Prymorskyy District Court of Mariupol, 30/05/2008
30370/09
26/05/2009
Viktor Mykolayovych KOVAL
07/05/1954
Oleksandriya
1) Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 24/07/2008
2) Oleksandriya Court, 10.04.2008.
32650/09
26/05/2009
Sergey Nikolayevich PELIKHOS
15/06/1971
Makiyivka
Chervonogvardiyskyy District Court of Makiyivka, 12/04/2007
46819/09
19/08/2009
Leonid Ivanovych GRYGORUK
23/04/1956
Kyiv
Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv, 12/02/2008 (as amended by the Higher Administrative Court
on 26/07/2011)
62241/09
03/11/2009
Daniya Galimzhanovna SHAKIRZYANOVA
24/02/1954
Zhuravlivka
Shakhtarsk Court, 27/12/2005
2831/10
16/12/2009
Valentina Georgiyevna OVCHINNIKOVA
23/11/1932
Mykolayiv
Tsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv, 12/07/2007
4855/10
06/01/2010
Mikhail Mefodyevich GRIGORYEV
27/05/1951
Lugansk
Artemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 13/10/2008
4862/10
06/01/2010
Vladimir Fedorovich DUDENKO
22/04/1951
Lugansk
Artemivskyy District Court of Lugansk, 10/11/2008
25288/10
23/04/2010
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SHMULYA
12/02/1945
Koroviy Yar
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 17/08/1999
25762/10
23/04/2010
Vasyl Ivanovych TYSHCHENKO
04/05/1950
Koroviy Yar
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003
28839/10
07/05/2010
Iryna Myroslavivna CHAYKOVSKA
22/08/1981
Ternopil
Ternopil Court, 11/05/2009 (date stated in the text of the judgment 11/06/2009)
42011/10
13/07/2010
Nina Panteleymonovna ASTAPENKO
01/01/1939
Tsyurupynsk
Tsuyrupinsk Court, 29/03/2000
46017/10
26/07/2010
Mykhaylo Mykolayovych SIRENKO
19/11/1957
Selydove
Sylidove Court, 17/05/2004
48219/10
02/08/2010
Petr Stepanovich TRIFONOV
06/02/1953
Kiliya
1) Kiliya Court, 28/02/2007
2) Kiliya Court, 28/08/2002
3) Kiliya Court, 10/02/2000
51820/10
20/07/2010
Aleksandr Ivanovich PODOPRIGORA
15/12/1957
Kryvyy Rig
Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 11/07/2008 as amended by judgment of the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig, 22/06/2009
64871/10
26/10/2010
Yelena Aleksandrovna BELOCHENKO
24/05/1926
Sevastopol
Kotovsk Court, 27/05/2008, quashed by the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 01/06/2011
68156/10
01/07/2010
Ivan Tymofiyovych BAVINOV
28/10/1934
Kremenchuk
Avtozavodskyy District Court of Kremenchuk, 04/09/2003
68607/10
05/11/2010
Larisa Fedorovna KOLESNIKOVA
03/04/1951
Mariupol
Novoazovsk Court, 07/07/2006
69438/10
09/11/2010
Ruslan Yuriyovych LYAKH
13/08/1966
Kolomyya
Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/11/2006
74338/10
20/11/2010
FPK GROSS OOO
Kharkiv
Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv, 21/04/2000
74608/10
07/12/2010
Yevgeniy Stepanovich UGLEV
23/07/1952
Cherkasy
Sosnovskyy District Court of Cherkasy, 11/02/2008
572/11
12/12/2010
1) Volodymyr Mykolayovych OLKHOVSKYY
28/01/1981
Poltava
2) Olena Oleksandrivna OLKHOVSKA
28/01/1981
Poltava
Applicant 1
Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009
Applicant 2
Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava, 15/07/2009
656/11
20/12/2010
Viktor Pavlovich ZAKHAROV
06/09/1950
Kripenskiy
1) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005;
2) Lugansk Regional Commercial Court, 01/11/2005
768/11
13/12/2010
Magdalina Vasilyevna LADZHUN
20/08/1949
Mukachevo
Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal, 14/07/2005
1205/11
22/12/2010
Ivan Prokofyevich SKREBTSOV
02/11/1949
Lugansk
1) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 20/11/2007, as amended by the Higher Administrative Court, 22/07/2010
2) Zhovtnevyy District Court of Lugansk, 25/11/2008
1503/11
25/12/2010
Nataliya Viktorivna ARKHYPOVA
20/10/1970
Lysychansk
Lysychansk Court, 15/02/2005
1677/11
26/12/2010
Nataliya Nikolayevna BACHKALOVA
14/06/1953
Poltava
1) Poltava Circuit Administrative Court, 08/10/2008
2) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 03/08/2007, as amended by the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15/05/2008
3) Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava, 02/11/2009
2491/11
29/12/2010
IBRIS, TOV
Dnipropetrovsk
Kyiv Commercial Court 27/02/2006 (amended on 19/04/2006 by the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal and on 31/01/2007 by the Higher Administrative Court)
4510/11
10/01/2011
Vladimir Alekseyevich POPOV
04/01/1944
Lugansk
Kamyanobridskyy District Court of Lugansk, 24/06/2009
6638/11
15/01/2011
Oleksandr Onysymovych KUDLAYENKO
18/01/1955
Vinnytsya
1) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 21/12/2006
2) Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsya, 27/04/2007
31562/13
24/02/2010
Anatoliy Sydorovych PASTUSHENKO
08/09/1947
Donetsk
Kirovskyy District Court of Donetsk, 09/12/2008
[1]. Second, third and fourth applicants (inadmissible): Mariya Leontiyivna ABRAMOVA, Olga Petrivna ABRAMOVA, Sofiya Petrivna ABRAMOVA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy