FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 61208/21
Denys Olegovych KRASYUK
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 October 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Lado Chanturia,
María Elósegui, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 December 2021,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Denys Olegovych Krasyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1994 and is detained in Hrushyne, Kharkiv region. The applicant was represented by Mr M. O. Tarakhkalo, Ms O. V. Kuvaieva and Ms A. H. Kozmenko, lawyers practising in Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Ms M. Sokorenko of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 September 2010 the applicant severely injured Z. The victim died. On the same day criminal proceedings on a charge of intentional grievous bodily harm were initiated.
Under the Supreme Court’s final ruling of 20 April 2021, the applicant was convicted as charged. He, as well as his legal representative and his lawyer, were present at the hearing before the Supreme Court.
According to the applicant, his lawyer received a copy of the final judgment on 16 June 2021. The application form was lodged with the Court on 13 December 2021.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had not been afforded an effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that the applicant had failed to submit his case to the Court within the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant and his lawyer had been present at the hearing on 20 April 2021, when the court had delivered the final judgment.
The applicant disagreed stating that six‑month period should be calculated from the date of receipt of a copy of the final judgment.
According to the Court’s case-law, the six‑month period cannot start running until the applicant and/or his or her representative have effective and sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision (see Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 31, 30 November 1999; Koç and Tosun v. Turkey (dec.) 23852/04, 13 November 2008). The Court usually interprets this principle as implying that the applicant should be served with the final decision. However, this rule should not be interpreted in an excessively rigid manner. In the case of Osman Baydemir and Others v. Turkey ([Committee] (dec.) no. 52428/08, 16 May 2017), the Court took as relevant the fact that the applicants and their lawyers were present for the oral notification of the final judgment and took the date of the hearing as the starting point of the six‑month time-limit, since the applicants had “effective and sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision” even before receiving the decision in a written form. The Court has also pointed out that from the date of the decision the applicants became aware that the decision was not a subject of cassation appeal (see Osman Baydemir and Others, cited above, and, by contrast, Sławiński v. Poland [Committee], no. 61039/16, § 22-26, 15 April 2021).
Returning to the present case, the Court notes that both the applicant and his lawyer were present at the Supreme Court’s hearing, they knew that the final decision was rendered on that day. From that date they had been aware of the end date of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, given the subject matter of the case, the applicant had sufficient knowledge of the final decision in his case already at the court hearing and, therefore, it was on 20 April 2021 when the time-limit had started to run, while the application form was only submitted by the applicant to the Court on 13 December 2021.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the application has been lodged belatedly and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 November 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy