FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF IVAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 24500/07 and 13 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ivan and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2016,
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 applications were communicated 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of 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 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. 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).
8. In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006, 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 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.
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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 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.
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıKhanlar Hajiyev
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 name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative 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]
24500/07
17/05/2007
Nadezhda Alekseyevna IVAN
24/01/1961
26/12/2000
25/12/2006
6 years
3 levels of jurisdiction
500
51276/07
06/11/2007
Anna Ivanovna REMNYOVA
21/04/1957
12/01/2001
30/10/2008
7 years, 9 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
15998/08
23/03/2008
Vasyl Grygorovych TROFYMCHUK
10/09/1944
11/09/1997
11/10/2000
03/11/1999
16/10/2007
2 years, 1 month and 24 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
7 years and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
49123/08
22/09/2008
Valentin Prokofyevich SHARUDA
03/07/1941
Renat Kambardzhanovich Mukhamedzhanov
Dnipropetrovsk
14/04/1999
22/11/2006
24/02/2005
06/05/2008
5 years, 10 months and 11 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1 year, 5 months and 15 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
4393/10
25/12/2009
Tetyana Oleksandrivna SVYATA
06/04/1963
18/12/2002
01/07/2003
30/09/2003
15/10/2007
19/11/2008
25/06/2009
27/05/2003
04/09/2003
29/08/2007
21/10/2008
26/05/2009
29/12/2009
5 months and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
2 months and 4 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
3 years and 11 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
1 year and 7 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
6 months and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
6 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
18598/10
15/03/2010
Mariya Ivanivna MATELESHKO
06/07/1949
18/12/2001
25/12/2008
12/09/2007
04/03/2011
5 years, 8 months and 26 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
2 years, 2 months and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
35062/10
08/06/2010
Olga Nikiforovna ZELENTSOVA
20/06/1953
26/06/2001
01/04/2010
8 years, 9 months and 7 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
26352/11
14/04/2011
SD, PBP
08/02/2000
14/02/2006
31/08/2010
30/03/2010
04/04/2013
4 years, 1 month and 17 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
2 years, 7 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
56854/11
26/08/2011
Roksolyana Ivanivna LENCHEVSKA
23/03/1946
11/09/1997
23/05/2011
13 years, 8 months and 13 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
56272/12
22/08/2012
Yevgeniya Mykolayivna SHUSTYTSKA
05/11/1953
03/11/2004
08/06/2012
7 years, 7 months and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
37013/13
03/06/2013
Nataliya Oleksiyivna OLEFIRENKO
27/02/1957
15/06/2006
28/02/2013
6 years, 8 months and 14 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
47193/13
16/07/2013
Yekaterina Georgiyevna KHMEL
11/10/1962
01/03/2005
09/12/2015
10 years, 9 months and 9 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
3,900
12066/15
02/03/2015
Oleksiy Andriyovych VORONKO
09/05/1996
02/10/2007
03/08/2010
09/09/2009
04/09/2014
1 year, 11 months and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4 years, 1 month and 2 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
500
60798/15
11/11/2015
Vitaliy Vasylyovych KUTSEVYCH
01/02/1949
Applicant died on 16/04/2016.
Ms Lidiya Andriyivna Kutsevych has the quality of heir.
06/03/2009
17/09/2015
6 years, 6 months and 12 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy