FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SHEMYAKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 23951/17 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shemyakin and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Sârcu, President,
Kateřina Šimáčková,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,
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. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5. 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.
6. 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).
7. In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
9. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
23951/17
13/03/2017
Oleg Volodymyrovych SHEMYAKIN
1968
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
17/11/2014
04/09/2024
9 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 19 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,400
23953/17
13/03/2017
Yakiv Oktyabriyovych TAKTASHOV
1962
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
17/11/2014
pending
More than
10 year(s) and 2 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,400
24798/17
24/03/2017
Larysa Viktorivna CHEREDNICHENKO
1976
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
13/11/2014
pending
More than
10 year(s) and 6 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,200
80455/17
17/11/2017
Anatoliy Volodymyrovych KONDRATYUK
1954
18/11/2014
pending
More than
10 year(s) and 1 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,200
82729/17
30/11/2017
Volodymyr Mykolayovych TROTS
1973
Vasylyuk Igor Mykolayovych
Lutsk
19/11/2014
04/10/2022
7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,200
16131/18
20/03/2018
Oleksandr Ivanovych PIDLISNYY
1975
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
06/04/2015
14/07/2022
7 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 9 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
900
28937/20
13/03/2020
Yuriy Yuriyovych DYBETS
1964
17/11/2014
pending
More than
10 year(s) and 2 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,200
21564/23
17/05/2023
Sergiy Anatoliyovych KUZMENKO
1961
Ishchenko Yuliya Arturivna
Kyiv
20/11/2014
pending
More than 10 year(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.