FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 510\/07
\nPREOBRAZOVATEL-SERVIS against Ukraine
\nand 331 other applications
\n(see appended table)<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7\u00a0June\u00a02018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Yonko Grozev, President,
\nGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appendices below,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are Ukrainian nationals and their personal details are set out in the appendices below.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0After the institution of the Convention proceedings the applicants Mr\u00a0Mykola Yakovych Burka (application no. 15533\/15) and Mr Leonid Fedorovych Lunko (application no. 46873\/13) died. Their heirs Mrs\u00a0Nataliya Vasylivna Burka and Ms Viktoriya Leonidivna Lunko respectively informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late relatives.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mr I. Lishchyna, from the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On the dates set out in the appendices the national courts found for the applicants and ordered the defendants under these judgments to take certain measures or to pay various amounts to the applicants. The applicants claimed that the judgments became binding, but has not been enforced or were enforced after prolonged delays. The relevant circumstances of the cases are outlined in the appendices below.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government within the pilot judgment procedure following the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450\/04, judgment of 15 October 2009).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the respondent Government argued that the applications did not comply with the admissibility criteria of the Convention and invited the Court to declare them inadmissible.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants disagreed.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, referring mainly to Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complained about the delayed enforcement of judgments in their favour. Additionally, several applicants raised other complaints, mainly challenging the alleged unfairness, outcome and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. Some of the applicants also raised other complaints relying on Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Joinder of the applications<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Standing of the applicants\u2019 heirs in applications no. 15533\/15 and no. 46873\/13<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicants\u2019 heirs in applications no.\u00a015533\/15 and no. 46873\/13 (see paragraph 2 above) have standing to continue the proceedings in the applicants\u2019 stead (see, among other authorities, Mironov v. Ukraine, no.19916\/04, \u00a7 12, 14 December 2006). However, reference will still be made to the applicants throughout the ensuing text.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Complaints related to protracted non-enforcement<\/strong><\/p>\n Applications set out in Appendix 1<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 23739\/13<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Shpola Local Court of Cherkasy Region of 17 May 2011.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0As it appears from the copy of the above-mentioned judgment, it was rendered in favour of a certain Mr K whose identity or relationship with the applicant could not be discerned from the documents provided by the latter. The judgment of the same court rendered in the applicant\u2019s favour was also provided, however, the applicant did not raise any complaints with regard to it in the present application.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In order to claim to be a victim of a violation, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378\/05, \u00a7 33, ECHR 2008). The applicant failed to substantiate in what way, if any, the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment of 17 May 2011 affected his rights under the Convention. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of the alleged violations.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Other applications<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has carefully examined the applications and notes that in each case the communicated non-enforcement complaints are inadmissible on the grounds set out in the last column of Appendix 1 which should be understood as follows:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Six months<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The respective complaints were lodged more than six months after the end of the situations in which the State could be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgments and must be rejected pursuant to Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for having been lodged too late.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The following complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded:<\/p>\n (1)\u00a0\u00a0complaints about the non-enforcement of judgments which were enforced within a reasonable time (see Soloshenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no.\u00a03952\/04, 15 November 2005);<\/p>\n (2)\u00a0\u00a0complaints about the failure of the domestic authorities to continue payments or recalculation of social benefits in the amount fixed by the judgments favourable to the applicants after the amendments to the legislation entered into force on23 July 2011 (see Velikoda v. Ukraine (dec.), no.\u00a043331\/12, \u00a7 21, 3 June 2014); and<\/p>\n (3)\u00a0\u00a0complaints that the domestic authorities failed to take additional (not ordered under the respective judgments) measures to remedy the alleged violations of the applicants\u2019 rights (e.g., the failure to pay recalculated amounts of social benefits under the judgments ordering only recalculation of such social benefits; the failure to pay compensation for the uninhabitable property under the judgments obliging the domestic authorities to put the applicants on the waiting list for receiving such compensation etc.).<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0No significant disadvantage<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0These applications are similar to Svystun v. Ukraine ((dec.), no.\u00a025250\/16 and 2 other applications, 3 November 2016) in which the judgment debt was less than equivalent to 200 euros (EUR) and the amount did not constitute the primary source of revenue for the applicant. Therefore, the complaints should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention since the applicants have not suffered a significant disadvantage.<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0Substantially the same<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The complaints raised in these applications are substantially identical to the ones raised by the same applicants in their previous applications and which have already been adjudicated by the Court. In view of the absence of any relevant new facts in the present applications, they must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention as substantially the same.<\/p>\n (v)\u00a0\u00a0Ratione personae<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In application no. 44255\/08 one of the applicant\u2019s complaints concerns the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal of 28 October 2009. In their observations the Government informed the Court that on 9 November 2011 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 28 October 2009 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first instance court. On 28\u00a0March 2012 the applicant lodged a request to leave his claims without consideration and the Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv granted his request.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0In application no. 49057\/14 the applicant complains about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of the Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson of 19 July 2012. In their observations the Government submitted that the above mentioned judgment was partially enforced in October 2012. In July 2014 the applicant renounced her claims concerning the enforcement of the remaining unenforced part of the judgment. On 31 October 2014 the Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson accepted the renouncement.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants did not provide any comments as regards the observations of the Government.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that under such circumstances the applicants can neither complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of the relevant judgments, nor can they claim to be victims of any alleged violations of their Convention rights. It follows that these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n Applications set out in Appendix 2<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Applications nos. 49198\/13, 54908\/13, 63128\/13 and 7298\/15<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The debtors in respect of the judgments at stake are private persons (applications nos. 54908\/13 and 63128\/13), and private legal entities (applications nos. 49198\/13 and 7298\/15), for the debts of which the State cannot be held responsible. The State\u2019s responsibility extends no further than the involvement of its bodies in enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Ponomaryov v. Ukraine, no. 3236\/03, \u00a7 51, 3 April 2008, Karpenko v. Ukraine, no. 17216\/05 and 10 other applications, 30 April 2013).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the Ukrainian legislation provides for the possibility to challenge before the courts the lawfulness of acts and omissions of the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service in enforcement proceedings and to claim damages from that Service for delays in payment of the amount awarded (see, for instance, Kukta v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19443\/03, 22\u00a0November 2005). In the present cases, the applicants failed to do so.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicants cannot be regarded as having exhausted the domestic remedies available to them, and the applications are to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 41679\/13<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted in their observations that the State disposed of all its shares in the debtor in respect of the judgment at issue more than six months before the applicant lodged his application with the Court. After this period the responsibility of the State extended no further than the involvement of State bodies in enforcement proceedings, and the applicant had not challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs\u2019 alleged inactivity in the enforcement of the judgment (see Ponomaryov, cited above, \u00a7 51).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes the observations of the Government, comes to the same conclusions and declares the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 510\/07<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the Government informed the Court that the debtor under the judgment at issue became a private legal entity in May\u00a02003 that is more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court. In addition, the Government noted that in January 2004 the Commercial Court of Lugansk Region instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The applicant failed to submit its claims as a creditor under the bankruptcy proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the Commercial Court of Lugansk Region declared that not submitted claims were deemed to be paid off. The applicant\u2019s lawsuit against the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service was rejected by the domestic courts. The Government stated that the State was not responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment after May 2003 and invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Considering the abovementioned the Court comes to the conclusion that the application is to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (d)\u00a0\u00a0Applications nos. 48413\/12 and 70750\/12<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted in their observations that the debtors in respect of the judgments at issue were private legal entities. They maintained that the State was responsible for the non-enforcement in the applicants\u2019 favour only insofar as the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service was involved, while the applicants had not duly challenged before the domestic courts the Bailiffs\u2019 alleged inactivity in the enforcement of their judgments. They further submitted that the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtors were brought in the domestic courts, but the applicants had not challenged the inactivity of the debtors\u2019 liquidators. The Government maintained that, taking into account the above, these applications were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes the observations of the Government, comes to the same conclusions and declares the applications inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (e)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 12719\/13<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The debtor under the judgment at issue was a private company \u2018Energovugillya\u2019. Until 30 July 2010 the company was protected from the creditors by the State (the enforcement proceeding against the debtor had to be suspended), as it was included in the Register of fuel and energy enterprises taking part in the procedure for recovery of debts pursuant to the 2005 Act \u2018On measures designed to ensure the stable functioning of fuel and energy enterprises\u2019. The applicant lodged her application on 6 February 2013, that is more than six months after the date when the company was excluded from the Register and thus after the responsibility of the Government for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment ended. Besides, the Government noted that the judgment was fully enforced on 28\u00a0February 2013.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court, therefore, rejects the application as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (f)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 48419\/13<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complains about the protracted non-enforcement of the judgment of the Bilogirsk Local Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (hereinafter \u2013 \u2018the Bilogirsk Court\u2019) of 26 May 2008 against a private company.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the Government state that the applicant challenged actions of the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service before the domestic courts. On 14 June 2011 the Bilogirsk Court found orders on termination of enforcement proceedings unlawful and ordered the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service to take exhaustive measures for the enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment. Under the judgment of the Bilogirsk Court of 23 August 2012 (upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on 29 October 2012) the applicant was awarded damages which were paid within a reasonable time. Therefore the Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible, as the applicant lost his victim status.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0As it appears from the documents provided by the parties, the applicant lodged other lawsuits challenging the actions of the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service and claiming damages, however, those further claims were rejected by the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the domestic courts acknowledged the alleged breach of the applicant\u2019s rights and awarded him compensation and therefore the applicant has lost his victim status (see Khaynatskyy and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 12895\/08 and foll., \u00a7 35, 9 January 2014). Therefore, the Court declares application no. 48419\/13 inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a), and rejects it pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n Applications set out in Appendix 3<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Applications nos. 14444\/14, 15441\/14, 15944\/14, 19279\/14, 40927\/14, 40958\/14 and 41065\/14<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the Government informed the Court that the individuals indicated as applicants in the above-mentioned applications died before the applications in their name were lodged with the Court. The dates of death as stated in the death certificates provided by the Government and the dates when the applications (or the first letters, where applicable) were lodged with the Court are outlined in Appendix 3 below. The observations were sent to the addresses indicated on the application forms as those of the applicants or their representatives. The Court received no comments in reply.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16\u00a0September 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV, and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667\/02, 2 May 2006) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no. 14102\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 21 and 24, 10 April 2012, and H\u00fcttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130\/04, 19 June 2006).<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0In the present applications the deceased individuals were presented as applicants with full legal capacity, living at that time in Zaporizhzhya (applications nos. 15441\/14, 15944\/14, 40927\/14 and 40958\/14), Sumy (applications nos. 14444\/14 and 41065\/14), and Kruti Gorby, Tarashcha District of Kyiv Region (application no. 19279\/14). On the application forms there appear signatures in the fields designated to be signed by the applicants. In the applications, except for no. 19279\/14, Mr S.M. Klopkov was named as a representative with the designated fields of the authority forms signed. In addition, as regards application no. 40927\/14, the Court received a letter dated 7 July 2014 allegedly signed by Mr Anikanov (who according to the death certificate died on 13 December 2012) with a request to attach additional documents in support of the submitted complaints.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0In such circumstances, the Court considers that the application forms were based on the false claims that the applicants were alive and willing to lodge applications with the Court. In addition to the application forms, the authority forms and the letter in application no. 40927\/14 bearing signatures of the deceased and issued after their death were necessarily forged. Although it is unclear who exactly sought to deceive the Court and falsified the signatures on the above mentioned documents, the consequence of such misleading procedural manipulations is obviously incompatible with the purpose of the right of individual application (compare, for instance, with Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101\/05, 3 July 2007, and Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862\/05, 12 May 2015).<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0That being so, the applications lodged in the name of Ms\u00a0Germanchuk, Mr Batsman, Ms Antonets, Ms Kotlyarenko, Mr\u00a0Anikanov, Mr Yatchenko and Mr Pugach are abusive for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) in fine of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 15778\/13<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations in the above-mentioned application the Government informed the Court that Mrs\u00a0Kitaygorodskaya died before the application in her name was lodged with the Court.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the application and the authority form naming Mr V.P. Kovalenko as a representative of Mrs\u00a0Kitaygorodskaya appear to be signed on 15 August 2012. According to the death certificate provided by the Government the applicant died on 21\u00a0November 2012. The application in the applicant\u2019s name was lodged by her representative on 10\u00a0February 2013. While it is unclear what caused the delay of almost six\u00a0months in lodging the application, the Court has no evidence in its possession to suggest that it was not the applicant who signed the application and authorized Mr Kovalenko to be her representative. Nevertheless, the application was lodged after the death of Mrs\u00a0Kitaygorodskaya.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that an application cannot be brought in the name of a deceased person, since a deceased person is unable, even through a representative, to lodge an application with the Court (see Ya\u015fa v. Turkey, no. 22495\/93, Commission\u2019s report of 8 April 1997, \u00a7 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI, and Sterjov and Others v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 40160\/04, \u00a7 14, 16 October 2014).<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Other complaints raised by the applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0Several applicants also raised other complaints. In particular, referring to Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they challenged the outcome, alleged unfairness and duration of the proceedings before the domestic courts. They also raised other complaints under Articles 3, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0In 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 these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols and should therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 28\u00a0June 2018.<\/p>\n Liv Tigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Yonko Grozev <\/p>\n APPENDIX 1<\/strong><\/p>\n date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n place of residence<\/strong><\/p>\n nationality<\/strong><\/td>\n 04\/05\/2008<\/td>\n 25\/05\/1960<\/p>\n Pistyn<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Lutsk Local Court of Volyn Region, 22\/12\/2006<\/td>\n 07\/09\/2008<\/td>\n 01\/09\/1936<\/p>\n Mykolayiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 28\/10\/2009<\/td>\n 2) Ratione personae<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 28\/08\/2009<\/td>\n 17\/10\/1958<\/p>\n Kharkiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 13\/09\/2011<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1964<\/p>\n Odesa<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 09\/02\/2012<\/td>\n 28\/07\/1960<\/p>\n Lugansk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 23\/04\/2012<\/td>\n 12\/01\/1957<\/p>\n Kagarlyk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Kagarlyk Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07\/02\/2011<\/td>\n 2) Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 26\/04\/2012<\/td>\n 10\/02\/1951<\/p>\n Lviv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 16\/11\/2012<\/td>\n 12\/05\/1954<\/p>\n Antratsyt<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 17\/06\/1952<\/p>\n Krasnyy Lyman<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 22\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 19\/07\/1955<\/p>\n Stebliv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 28\/09\/1938<\/p>\n Sumy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 17\/01\/2013<\/td>\n 22\/03\/1946<\/p>\n Konotop<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 26\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 20\/10\/1943<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 07\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 04\/12\/1951<\/p>\n Chernigiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 01\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 12\/11\/1959<\/p>\n Truskavets<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 11\/01\/2013<\/td>\n 31\/10\/1952<\/p>\n Vasylivka Druga<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 15\/04\/2011<\/p>\n 3) Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 26\/10\/2009<\/td>\n 2)Substantially the same<\/p>\n 3) Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 22\/07\/1963<\/p>\n Zaporizhzhya<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 16\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 29\/09\/1958<\/p>\n Monastyryshche<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 20\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 11\/03\/1960<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 26\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 02\/02\/1977<\/p>\n Bila Tserkva<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 28\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 03\/10\/1962<\/p>\n Maryanivka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 01\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 19\/06\/1944<\/p>\n Zhytomyr<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 03\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 23\/10\/1959<\/p>\n Nizhyn<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 08\/06\/1955<\/p>\n Mazurivka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 15\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 07\/08\/1951<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 20\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 20\/01\/1967<\/p>\n Bila Tserkva<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 19\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1950<\/p>\n Tulchyn<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 11\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 05\/12\/1952<\/p>\n Mykolayiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 10\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 20\/08\/1959<\/p>\n Kolomyya<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 03\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 15\/05\/1967<\/p>\n Gorodyshche<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 13\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 20\/12\/1958<\/p>\n Odesa<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 22\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 24\/01\/1953<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 20\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 15\/01\/1955<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 22\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 17\/10\/1956<\/p>\n Gorodnya<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 30\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 08\/02\/1937<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 06\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 15\/04\/1941<\/p>\n Kakhovka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Kakhovka Local Court of Kherson Region, 18\/11\/2011<\/td>\n 2) Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 10\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 07\/07\/1969<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 17\/04\/1957<\/p>\n Afrykanivka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 13\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 12\/09\/1963<\/p>\n Slavutych<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Slavutych Local Court of Kyiv Region, 04\/04\/2011 (case no. 2-a-2122\/11\/1023)<\/td>\n 2) Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 18\/05\/2013<\/td>\n 01\/05\/1952<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 19\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 05\/02\/1954<\/p>\n Semenivka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 18\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 28\/02\/1939<\/p>\n Boyarka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 20\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 17\/12\/1952<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 27\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 02\/01\/1952<\/p>\n Rivne<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 29\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 15\/01\/1959<\/p>\n Fastiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 25\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 05\/04\/1944<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 26\/07\/2011<\/td>\n 2) No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 26\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 22\/12\/1936<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 05\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 20\/09\/1944<\/p>\n Chernivtsi<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 15\/03\/2010<\/p>\n 3) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 30\/03\/2011<\/td>\n 2) No significant disadvantage<\/p>\n 3) No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 10\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 25\/08\/1972<\/p>\n Slobozhanske<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 28\/08\/1943<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 17\/05\/2011<\/td>\n 2) Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 08\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 23\/07\/1937<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 01\/03\/1944<\/p>\n Zaporizhzhya<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 05\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 10\/12\/1935<\/p>\n Kherson<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 20\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 26\/04\/1952<\/p>\n Krasnoarmiysk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 26\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 10\/04\/1949<\/p>\n Vinnytsya<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 29\/07\/2013<\/td>\n 17\/02\/1960<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 07\/03\/1955<\/p>\n Kremenchuk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 09\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 28\/06\/1955<\/p>\n Pishchanka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal, 26\/06\/2013<\/td>\n 2) Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 01\/10\/1956<\/p>\n Kirovograd<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 10\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 06\/01\/1955<\/p>\n Dniprodzerzhynsk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 12\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 30\/09\/1943<\/p>\n Dniprodzerzhynsk<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 08\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 07\/03\/1972<\/p>\n Dnipro<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 2) Dnipropetrovsk Circuit Administrative Court, 03\/04\/2012<\/td>\n 2) Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 08\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 11\/04\/1947<\/p>\n Prygozhe<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 17\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 05\/09\/1952<\/p>\n Tagancha<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 16\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 31\/08\/1963<\/p>\n Cherkasy<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 19\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 08\/08\/1958<\/p>\n Pukhivka<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 22\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 10\/11\/1942<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 29\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 21\/10\/1949<\/p>\n Kharkiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 21\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 14\/05\/1938<\/p>\n Kyiv<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 12\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 21\/01\/1956<\/p>\n Boryspil<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n 28\/08\/2013<\/td>\n 14\/05\/1967<\/p>\n Balashykha<\/p>\n Ukrainian<\/td>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no. and date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n Relevant domestic decision<\/strong><\/td>\n Reasons for inadmissibility<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 26046\/08<\/p>\n Yaroslav Vasylyovych KOSTYNYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 29\/12\/2005, as amended by Kyiv City Court of Appeal, 20\/06\/2006<\/p>\n No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 44255\/08<\/p>\n Anatoliy Vasylyovych BILOBRATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv, 06\/04\/2004<\/p>\n 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 62255\/09<\/p>\n Vitaliy Alekseyevich OSTRIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court, 18\/11\/2009<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 60180\/11<\/p>\n Sergey Vasilyevich NIKODIM<\/strong><\/p>\n Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, 14\/03\/2011<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 12179\/12<\/p>\n Oleg Vladimirovich UDOVCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Leninskyy Local Court of Lugansk, 19\/06\/2006<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 26534\/12<\/p>\n Viktor Ivanovych VASYLCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Kagarlyk Local Court of Kyiv Region, 21\/03\/2011<\/p>\n 1) Manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 28441\/12<\/p>\n Oleksandr Anatoliyovych SHUTYAK<\/strong><\/p>\n Lychakivskyy Local Court of Lviv, 19\/03\/2008<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 73769\/12<\/p>\n Volodymyr Mykolayovych SAZHYN<\/strong><\/p>\n Lugansk Circuit Administrative Court, 14\/07\/2008<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 12537\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandra Petrivna DOMINOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Krasnyy Lyman Local Court of Donetsk Region, 13\/01\/2012<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 14792\/13<\/p>\n Borys Yakovych YAROVYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Korsun-Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 11\/07\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 11.<\/td>\n 14985\/13<\/p>\n Mariya Mykhaylivna KORZHYLOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy, 07\/10\/2011<\/td>\n No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 12.<\/td>\n 16071\/13<\/p>\n Viktor Vladimirovich LITVISHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Konotop Local Court of Sumy Region, 14\/12\/2011<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 13.<\/td>\n 17528\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandr Semenovych ARSHEVSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Tsentralno-Miskyy Local Court of Makiyivka, 06\/05\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 14.<\/td>\n 17540\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandra Fedorivna SHAGA<\/strong><\/p>\n Novozavodskyy Local Court of Chernigiv, 18\/12\/2009<\/td>\n Substantially the same<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 15.<\/td>\n 17723\/13<\/p>\n Oleg Vasylyovych SHCHERBIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Lugansk, 04\/12\/2007, as amended by Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal, 20\/02\/2008<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 16.<\/td>\n 18411\/13<\/p>\n Vadym Oleksiyovych PLATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 24\/05\/2011<\/p>\n 1) Substantially the same<\/p>\n \n 17.<\/td>\n 20829\/13<\/p>\n Sergiy Oleksandrovych PURDES<\/strong><\/p>\n Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy, 21\/09\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 18.<\/td>\n 20951\/13<\/p>\n Petro Pavlovych SMITYUKH<\/strong><\/p>\n Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal, 18\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 19.<\/td>\n 22036\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandr Vasylyovych PETRENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 09\/12\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 20.<\/td>\n 23117\/13<\/p>\n Inna Anatoliyivna STEPANENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine, 21\/09\/2011<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 21.<\/td>\n 23739\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandr Stanislavovych ROGOZINSKYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Shpola Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 17\/05\/2011<\/td>\n Manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 22.<\/td>\n 23863\/13<\/p>\n Yevgeniya Ivanivna SEVRUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Bogunskyy Local Court of Zhytomyr, 31\/12\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 23.<\/td>\n 24718\/13<\/p>\n Yuriy Ivanovych SAKHNO<\/strong><\/p>\n Nizhyn Local Court of Chernigiv Region, 22\/07\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 24.<\/td>\n 25212\/13<\/p>\n Ganna Mykolayivna MARTYNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 18 \/03\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 25.<\/td>\n 26820\/13<\/p>\n Yuriy Mykhaylovych YERMOLAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Sosnivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 21\/06\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 26.<\/td>\n 28263\/13<\/p>\n Larysa Mykolayivna KUPRIYANCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Bila Tserkva Local Court of Kyiv Region, 17\/06\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 27.<\/td>\n 29532\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Grygorovych KAPSHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 31\/05\/2011, as amended by Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal, 27\/08\/2012<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 28.<\/td>\n 30506\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Mykolayovych SALKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Leninskyy Local Court of Mykolayiv, 14\/12\/2006<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 29.<\/td>\n 32361\/13<\/p>\n Igor Romanovych MAGMET<\/strong><\/p>\n Kolomyya Local Court of Ivano-Frankivsk Region, 14\/05\/2007<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 30.<\/td>\n 32613\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandr Viktorovych KORNUS<\/strong><\/p>\n Gorodyshche Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 15\/10\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 31.<\/td>\n 34928\/13<\/p>\n Grygoriy Yakovych KLYMENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 28\/08\/2012<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 32.<\/td>\n 35008\/13<\/p>\n Volodymyr Illich YEVTUSHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 16\/06\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 33.<\/td>\n 35446\/13<\/p>\n Nataliya Viktorivna PETRENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Golosiyivskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 10\/12\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 34.<\/td>\n 36476\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Mykolayovych SHARPATYY<\/strong><\/p>\n Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal, 12\/05\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 35.<\/td>\n 38371\/13<\/p>\n Galyna Oleksandrivna KRUTAS<\/strong><\/p>\n Suvorovskyy Local Court of Kherson, 02\/07\/2009, as amended by Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, 06\/07\/2011<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 36.<\/td>\n 39147\/13<\/p>\n Oleksandr Ivanovych BYEDNIN<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Kakhovka Local Court of Kherson Region, 21\/03\/2001<\/p>\n 1) Six months<\/p>\n \n 37.<\/td>\n 39611\/13<\/p>\n Andriy Anatoliyovych VORONKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court, 29\/01\/2009<\/td>\n No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 38.<\/td>\n 40051\/13<\/p>\n Viktor Ivanovych PONEDILOK<\/strong><\/p>\n Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 21\/06\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 39.<\/td>\n 41311\/13<\/p>\n Svitlana Stepanivna ULRYKH<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Slavutych Local Court of Kyiv Region, 04\/04\/2011 (case no. 2-a-2123\/11\/1023)<\/p>\n 1) Manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n \n 40.<\/td>\n 41533\/13<\/p>\n Georgiy Petrovych LEBEDYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Sosnivskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 22\/10\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 41.<\/td>\n 41828\/13<\/p>\n Viktor Stepanovych PEREDERIY<\/strong><\/p>\n Semenivka Local Court of Poltava Region, 23\/07\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 42.<\/td>\n 42306\/13<\/p>\n Nina Ivanivna OSYPENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy Local Court of Kyiv Region, 25\/12\/2009, as amended by Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 09\/06\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 43.<\/td>\n 42372\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Andriyovych KYSIL<\/strong><\/p>\n Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 13\/09\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 44.<\/td>\n 43108\/13<\/p>\n Ganna Panasivna KRAVCHUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Rivne Local Court of Rivne Region, 12\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 45.<\/td>\n 43787\/13<\/p>\n Valentyna Ivanivna MATSAPURA<\/strong><\/p>\n Fastiv Local Court of Kyiv Region, 26\/11\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 46.<\/td>\n 44051\/13<\/p>\n Kateryna Oleksandrivna TATARINA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 25\/03\/2011<\/p>\n 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n \n 47.<\/td>\n 44228\/13<\/p>\n Dmytro Ivanovych STOGNIY<\/strong><\/p>\n Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 25\/06\/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 05\/06\/2012<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 48.<\/td>\n 46604\/13<\/p>\n Petro Vasylyovych OSKOLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Chernivtsi, 11\/12\/2008, as amended by Lviv Administrative Court of Appeal, 18\/06\/2009<\/p>\n 1) No significant disadvantage<\/p>\n \n 49.<\/td>\n 46638\/13<\/p>\n Tetyana Anatoliyivna SHYRSHOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Zmiyiv Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 01\/12\/2010, as amended by Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 50.<\/td>\n 46873\/13<\/p>\n Leonid Fedorovych LUNKO<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 22\/12\/2010, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 04\/11\/2011<\/p>\n 1) No significant disadvantage<\/p>\n \n 51.<\/td>\n 47034\/13<\/p>\n Ivan Grygorovych ZHUGAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 04\/08\/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 24\/01\/2013<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 52.<\/td>\n 47560\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Ivanovych LOBACH<\/strong><\/p>\n Shevchenkivskyy Local Court of Zaporizhzhya, 13\/04\/2011<\/td>\n No significant disadvantage and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 53.<\/td>\n 48504\/13<\/p>\n Tetyana Stepanivna TRUNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Komsomolskyy Local Court of Kherson, 27\/04\/2011, as amended by Odesa Administrative Court of Appeal, 10\/07\/2012<\/td>\n No significant disadvantage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 54.<\/td>\n 49860\/13<\/p>\n Grygoriy Petrovych GORYACHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Krasnoarmiyskyy Local Court of Donetsk Region, 09\/12\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 55.<\/td>\n 50176\/13<\/p>\n Tamara Vasylivna GUTSOL<\/strong><\/p>\n Tulchyn Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 26\/11\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 56.<\/td>\n 50198\/13<\/p>\n Viktor Ivanovych BOBOSHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 12\/05\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 57.<\/td>\n 52213\/13<\/p>\n Volodymyr Pavlovych KHANDOGIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Avtozavodskyy Local Court of Kremenchuk, 11\/12\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 58.<\/td>\n 52838\/13<\/p>\n Volodymyr Mykhaylovych STOLYARYK<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Pishchanka Local Court of Vinnytsya Region, 11\/04\/2011<\/p>\n 1) Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/p>\n \n 59.<\/td>\n 53018\/13<\/p>\n Petro Ivanovych STEPANENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Kirovskyy Local Court of Kirovograd, 28\/04\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 60.<\/td>\n 53611\/13<\/p>\n Viktor Mykolayovych USOLTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 13\/01\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 61.<\/td>\n 53791\/13<\/p>\n Valentyn Vasylyovych ROMANYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n Dniprovskyy Local Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk, 27\/01\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 62.<\/td>\n 53819\/13<\/p>\n Sergiy Omelyanovych VOLOSHYN<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Industrialnyy Local Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 27\/07\/2001<\/p>\n 1) No significant disadvantage<\/p>\n \n 63.<\/td>\n 54646\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Ivanovych BONDARENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Barvinkove Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 20\/05\/2009<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 64.<\/td>\n 54747\/13<\/p>\n Nina Leonidivna AVRAMENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Kaniv Local Court of Cherkasy Region, 23\/05\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 65.<\/td>\n 54758\/13<\/p>\n Vitaliy Leonidovych OKHRIMENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Prydniprovskyy Local Court of Cherkasy, 30\/09\/2011, as amended by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 19\/06\/2012<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 66.<\/td>\n 54925\/13<\/p>\n Lyubov Ivanivna SKOPYCH<\/strong><\/p>\n Brovary Local Court of Kyiv Region, 07\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 67.<\/td>\n 55472\/13<\/p>\n Mariya Andriyivna KASHTALYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Solomyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 23\/09\/2009<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 68.<\/td>\n 56136\/13<\/p>\n Mykola Ivanovych RYABTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Kharkiv, 28\/12\/2010, as amended by Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 15\/04\/2011<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 69.<\/td>\n 56348\/13<\/p>\n Mariya Leontiyivna KOLOMIYETS<\/strong><\/p>\n Solomyanskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 27\/01\/2011, as amended by Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal, 08\/06\/2011<\/td>\n Six months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 70.<\/td>\n 56419\/13<\/p>\n Anatoliy Ivanovych VLASENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Boryspil Local Court of Kyiv Region, 24\/11\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 71.<\/td>\n 57208\/13<\/p>\n Tetyana Volodymyrivna SVERGUNENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n Ovruch Local Court of Zhytomyr Region, 02\/11\/2010<\/td>\n Six months and manifestly ill-founded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 72.<\/td>\n 57285\/13<\/p>\n