FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44110/15
Vladimir Nikolayevich BEKALYUK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Péter Paczolay, judges
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2015,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Nikolayevich Bekalyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Nelipivka, Toretsk municipality in the Donetsk Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. Since 8 February 2011 criminal proceedings have been pending against the applicant in connection with a traffic incident which occurred in Makiyivka of the Donetsk Region in September 2010.
4. On 30 December 2013 the Makiyivka Gornyatsky Court found the applicant guilty of infringement of traffic regulations which had caused injuries of average severity to four individuals. He was sentenced to six months’ detention (арешт) but released from actually serving the sentence.
5. On 22 April 2014 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
6. On 10 June 2014 the High Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (“the HSC”) initiated the review proceedings and requested the case file from the first-instance court.
7. In the course of the events which occurred in 2014 and which are described in Khlebik v. Ukraine (no. 2945/16, §§ 9-12, 25 July 2017) the Ukrainian Government lost control over Makiyivka.
8. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (25 August 2015), the case file had not yet been transferred from the first-instance court to the HSC and the applicant’s appeal had not been examined.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. The relevant domestic law is summarised in Khlebik, cited above, §§ 35‑45.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his appeal has not been examined within a reasonable time and under Article 13 of the Convention that he does not have an effective domestic remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
11. The applicant complains about the length of the appeal proceedings and about a lack of effective remedy.
He invokes Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
12. The Court observes that it has already examined issues similar to the one raised by the present application in Khlebik v. Ukraine (no. 2945/16, §§ 66-81, 25 July 2017), where it found no violation of Article 6.
13. Contrary to that case, however, in the present case the applicant has never been detained. Moreover, he has not applied to have the case-file material restored and has not submitted that this procedure would be futile in his case.
14. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim that the Ukrainian authorities have breached the invoked provisions of the Convention in the circumstances of his case.
15. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that this application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.
Andrea TamiettiFaris Vehabović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy