FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PRYSHLYAK AND NEKRASOVA v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 4498/18 and 30341/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pryshlyak and Nekrasova 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 16 May 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 4498/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
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 principally that the length of the criminal 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 ... 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.”
7. 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8. In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 as to 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.
10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicant in application no. 4498/18 also submitted a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention concerning the excessive length of his obligation not to abscond (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006) and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine (no. 14613/03, § 59, 18 February 2010).
IV. 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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;
4. Holds that, in application no. 4498/18, there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention as regards the excessive length of the obligation not to abscond (see appended table);
5. 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 6 June 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 criminal 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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
4498/18
24/11/2017
Mykola Ivanovych Pryshlyak
21/05/1964
Oleg Volodymyrovych Mytsyk
Lviv
16/11/2009
25/05/2017
7 years, 6 months and 10 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond:
the applicant signed an obligation not to abscond on 17/11/2009, the restriction on his freedom of movement was lifted on 25/05/2017, no re-examination of the justification of the measure
1,900
30341/18
03/06/2018
Tamara Aleksandrovna Nekrasova
22/12/1973
03/03/2012
pending
More than 7 years, 1 month and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy