European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

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 Bakırcı                                                                Khanlar Hajiyev
     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 / 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]
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
2.	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
3.	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
4.	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
5.	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
6.	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
7.	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
8.	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
9.	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
10.	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
11.	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
12.	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
13.	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
14.	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.