FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF FEYA, MPP AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 27617/06 and 126 other applications)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 February 2013

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Feya, MPP 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 29 January 2013,

Having noted that the underlying legal issue in the applications is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009),

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in 127 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 and Russian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, whose details are specified in the appended tables.

2.  The applicants in applications nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 and 36266/10 died. The applications were pursued in their name by the persons of the required standing, their relatives or heirs to their estate.

3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.

4.  The applications, which mainly concern the issues of lengthy failure to enforce domestic decisions given in the applicants’ favour, were communicated to the Government on various dates.

5.  On various dates the Government submitted to the Court a number of unilateral declarations aimed at resolving the non-enforcement issues. 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 Russian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 35071/10 and 53963/10 (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 tables domestic courts and commissions on labour disputes delivered judgments and 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 because of State’s failure to comply with these decisions.

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 in terms of the principal legal issue raised, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

II.  THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 AND 36266/10

10.  The Court considers that the applicants’ heirs or next-of-kin in the applications nos. 46250/08, 22257/10 and 36266/10 (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).

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

11.  The applicants complained 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. They relied on, expressly or in substance, Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

12.  The Court notes that the applicants’ above complaints 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.

13.  The Court finds that the decisions in the applicants’ favour were not enforced in due time, for which the State authorities were responsible.

14.  Having regard to its well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, cited above, §§ 56-58 and 66-70), 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.

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

15.  Some of the applicants raised other complaints under the Convention which the Court has carefully examined. 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.

16.  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.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  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.”

18.  In the present case, bearing in mind its previous decision on the matter (see Kharuk and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 703/05 and 115 other applications, § 25, 26 July 2012), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award amounts of EUR 3,000 jointly to the applicants in applications nos. 32178/09 and 50804/09, and in the remainder of the applications it awards 3,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant in the applications which concern non‑enforcement delays exceeding three years (the applications tabulated in Appendix 1) and EUR 1,500 to each applicant in the other applications (the applications tabulated in Appendix 2). These sums are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.

19.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decisions which remain enforceable.

20.  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;

2.  Declares the applicants’ complaints 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 the 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 the respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour which remain enforceable and is to pay, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) jointly to the applicants in applications nos. 32178/09 and 50804/09, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each applicant or his or her estate in the applications tabulated in Appendix 1 and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to each applicant or his or her estate in the applications tabulated in Appendix 2 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 21 February 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX 1

(non-enforcement delays more than three years)

APPENDIX 2

(non-enforcement delays less than three years)