FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BALAKIREV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 61109/10 and 33773/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 July 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Balakirev and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Yonko Grozev, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... 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.”
7. After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised in application no. 61109/10 by Mr Lebyak and Mr Roshka are inadmissible since they joined the proceedings on a later date (23 June 2005 and 16 May 2005, respectively). Therefore the length of the proceedings (5 years, 9 months, 1 day and 5 years, 9 months, 10 days, respectively, before 3 levels of jurisdiction) was not excessive or unreasonable (see, Yuryeva and Yuryev v. Ukraine, no. 3431/03, § 43, 31 July 2012). Accordingly, the above complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
8. As regards the remaining applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
9. In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, (no. 23786/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 61 and 66), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicants in respect of whom the Court has found a violation.
15. 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 complaints raised in application no. 61109/10 by Mr Lebyak and Mr Roshka inadmissible;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law raised by the remaining applicants admissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 11 July 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtYonko Grozev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
61109/10
14/10/2010
(4 applicants)
Sergey Nikolayevich Balakirev
21/04/1963
Mikhail Vladimirovich Ryaboy
19/11/1963
Roman Vasilyevich Lebyak
19/01/1956
Dmitriy Vasilyevich Roshka
09/10/1959
Roman Yuryevich Martynovskiy
Kyiv
05/03/2004
05/02/2008
06/05/2011
05/03/2004
05/02/2008
06/05/2011
23/06/2005
05/02/2008
06/05/2011
16/05/2005
05/02/2008
06/05/2011
26/06/2007
14/05/2010
22/10/2012
26/06/2007
16/04/2010
22/10/2012
26/06/2007
14/05/2010
22/10/2012
26/06/2007
16/04/2010
22/10/2012
7 years and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
6 years, 11 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
5 years, 9 months and 1 day
3 levels of jurisdiction
5 years, 9 months and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
900
0
0
33773/18
02/07/2018
Sevil Dilsuzivna Kosayeva
02/11/1976
Denys Sergiyovych Kucherenko
Zaporizhzhya
17/08/2005
pending
More than 13 years, 8 months and 24 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy