FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14573/08
Saimya Khamatzyanovna ZHYGAREVA against Ukraine
and Vladimir Petrovich SLEDNYOV against Ukraine
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, considers that the applicants’ complaints under this head are inadmissible.
In particular, application no. 14573/08 was introduced on 14 March 2008 while the last court decision in the applicant’s case was adopted on 27 June 2007. As the applicant did not submit any evidence confirming that she had learned about that decision on a later date, the application was introduced out of time.
In application no. 17990/08 the applicant, a former director of a State enterprise, challenged the privatisation of that enterprise and complained before this Court about the length of the ensuing court proceedings. It is observed that the proceedings in question did not concern the applicant’s civil rights and obligations. The applicant’s complaints are therefore incompatible ratione materiae with Article 6 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications 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 § 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 November 2017.
Liv TigerstedtNona Tsotsoria
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 name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
14573/08
14/03/2008
Saimya Khamatzyanovna Zhygareva
26/07/1956
19/02/2001
27/06/2007
6 years, 4 months and 9 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
17990/08
08/04/2008
Vladimir Petrovich Slednyov
29/07/1938
11/02/2003
17/01/2008
4 years, 11 months and 7 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy