FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KRASNYAKOVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 3011/06 and 10 others -
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Krasnyakovy and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	André Potocki, President,
	Síofra O’Leary,
	Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2017,
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.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MR SERGEY VIKTOROVICH SAMISHCHENKO
6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no.  60072/08, the Court notes that the applicant died on 6 November 2014, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s son, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Samishchenko, has requested to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007, and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
7.  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.”
8. The Court notes that in application no. 52865/08 the period to be taken into consideration in relation to the “reasonable time” complaint must be calculated from 11 September 1997, the date when Ukraine’s recognition of the right of individual petition before the Court took effect. Therefore, in so far as the complaint relates to the proceedings prior to 11 September 1997, it must be declared inadmissible as being beyond the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis (see Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 101, 6 October 2011). The Court therefore declares this part of application no. 52865/08 inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
9.  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).
10.  In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, (no. 23786/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11.  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.
12.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14.  In applications nos. 52865/08 and 60072/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
15.  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 § 4 of the Convention.
IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.  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.”
17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786/02, §§ 61 and 66, 30 November 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
18.  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 raised by the applicant in application no. 52865/08, concerning the proceedings prior to 11 September 1997, inadmissible;

3.  Declares the other complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 52865/08 and 60072/08 inadmissible;

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

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 14 December 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Liv Tigerstedt	André Potocki
	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 name
Date of birth
	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 /household
(in euros)	
1.		3011/06
17/12/2005	Household
Natalya Grigoryevna Krasnyakova
19/04/1951

Leonid Ivanovich Krasnyakov
30/09/1949	Nikolay Zakharovich Pashkov,
Donetsk	11/05/1999	13/03/2014	14 years, 10 months and 3 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	7,000	
2.		42733/08
20/08/2008	Irina Viktorovna Tatarnikova
01/08/1955		01/10/2001
	21/02/2008
	6 years, 4 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	500	
3.		52865/08
18/10/2008	Tatyana Anatolyevna Davydova
15/01/1949		11/09/1997	28/05/2008	10 years, 8 months and 18 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	3,000	
4.		60072/08
23/11/2008	Viktor Petrovich Samishchenko
29/10/1949

The applicant died on 6 November 2014.
Mr Sergey Viktorovich Samishchenko, the applicant’s son, has the quality of heir.		24/10/2001	15/10/2008	6 years, 11 months and 22 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	900	
5.		675/11
14/12/2010	Sergiy Vitaliyovych Martynenko
26/12/1971		05/10/2004

05/07/2005

12/06/2007

27/08/2010	23/06/2005

02/09/2011

08/06/2010

19/09/2014	8 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

6 years, 1 months and 29 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

2 years, 11 months and 28 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

4 years and 24 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	900	
6.		1494/11
27/12/2010	Lyudmila Alekseyevna Novoseltseva
17/07/1947		10/08/2001	08/10/2010	9 years,1 month and 29 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	1,800	
7.		52523/12
02/08/2012	Household
Lyudmila Petrovna Kotman
17/10/1960

Vladislav Sergeyevich Kotman
04/10/1989		13/07/2000	30/03/2012	11 years, 8 months and 18 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	4,700	
8.		60181/13
12/09/2013	Nataliya Alekseyevna Yerofeyeva
01/11/1961		04/12/2002

19/04/2004

20/11/2012
	12/03/2003

18/11/2010

13/03/2013
	3 months and 9 days
3 levels of jurisdiction

6 years and 7 months
3 levels of jurisdiction

3 months and 22 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	900	
9.		61941/13
11/09/2013	Roman Vasylyovych Nedashkovskyy
18/06/1974		22/03/2004	12/03/2013	8 years, 11 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	2,300	
10.		22755/14
05/03/2014	Lidiya Filippovna Khodykina
02/08/1950		29/09/2004	06/09/2013	8 years, 11 months and 9 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	1,800	
11.		38340/16
21/06/2016	Lidiya Borysivna Dovga
17/06/1950	Dmytro Anatoliyovych Gudyma
Lviv	11/04/2006

23/02/2009	10/09/2008

18/11/2015	2 years and 5 months
3 levels of jurisdiction

6 years, 8 months and 27 days
3 levels of jurisdiction	1,800