FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52932/07
Yuriy Nikolayevich RUDYK against Ukraine
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates stated in the annexed table,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are 12 Ukrainian nationals whose names and dates of birth are tabulated below. All the applicants reside in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On the dates set out in the annexed table below the national courts held for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments (debtors) to pay various amounts to the applicants. These judgments became binding but the authorities delayed their enforcement.
The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government with the reference to the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov cited above. By letters sent on different dates the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicants did not suffer any significant disadvantage as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgments, because in each case the amount at stake was very small. For some applications the Government additionally referred to other inadmissibility reasons. The Government requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible.
The applicants disagreed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.
THE LAW
The Court first considers that in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their common legal background.
The Court further notes that in the present cases the delay of enforcement concerned the payment of relatively small awards (see table below) and the applicants did not submit any arguments or evidence to suggest that the delay in the payment of such awards had a significant impact on their personal lives. The Court has previously found a lack of “significant disadvantage” in the cases, where the amount in question was equal or inferior to roughly EUR 500 (see, for instance, Gururyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11456/05, 24 January 2012 - the case of salary arrears of AMD 102,889 - the equivalent in euro was not given in the decision itself, but it was equivalent to approximately EUR 200; Ștefănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 11774/04, 12 April 2011 – failure to reimburse EUR 125). The Court finds therefore that in present cases the applicants did not suffer any significant disadvantage as a result of the non-enforcement of the final judgments.
The Court also notes that “the respect for human rights”, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require examination of the present complaints on the merits, as the problem of non-enforcement of final decisions has already been addressed in the Court’s pilot judgment against Ukraine adopted in the case of Yuriy Nikolaevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above and in a number of other cases examined against Ukraine, which are moreover currently examined under “the well-established case-law procedure”.
The Court notes moreover that the applicants’ cases were duly considered by domestic tribunals within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) with the decisions favourable to the applicants.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the complaints should be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
Having regard to its conclusion above the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine other arguments of the Government as to the inadmissibility of the applications concerned.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no. and date of introduction
Applicant name
date of birth
Final domestic decision details
52932/07
14/09/2007
Tamara Semenivna RUDYK
01/01/1956
Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv, 21/01/2004
653/10
04/12/2009
Oleg Pavlovich LEBEDEV
23/09/1968
Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd, 27/09/2007
25356/10
23/04/2010
Taisiya Fedorivna AISTOVA
14/01/1950
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 24/11/2003
25781/10
23/04/2010
Zoya Ivanivna TYSHCHENKO
24/05/1951
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003
25833/10
23/04/2010
Valentyna Oleksiyivna GRYNYOVA
26/05/1955
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003
26682/10
23/04/2010
Ivan Vasylyovych TYSHCHENKO
21/11/1976
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003
26699/10
23/04/2010
Nataliya Oleksiyivna BAYRACHNA
15/02/1969
Krasnyy Lyman Court, 12/12/2003
31061/10
17/05/2010
Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych KARPYSHCHENKO
19/12/1973
Kovpakivskyy District Court of Sumy, 04/11/2004
33284/10
04/06/2010
Galina Sergeyevna BEZBORODAYA
04/12/1948
1) Kakhovka Court, 16/12/2008
2) Kakhovka Court, 11/08/2009
3) Kakhovka Court, 17/08/2009
47537/10
27/07/2010
Vasiliy Mitrofanovich TRUBIN
05/10/1929
Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, 24/07/2007
53800/10
27/07/2010
Vitaliy Vasylyovych KUTSEVYCH
01/02/1949
Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 05/02/2009
860/11
17/12/2010
Petr Mikhaylovich KORZHIKOV
12/07/1947
Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv, 25/03/2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy