European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SHERSTNEVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

 

(Application no. 43076/07 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

18 May 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Sherstneva and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
          Egidijus Kūris,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 April 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 43076/07, the applicant 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 criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

8.  In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004, 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 as to 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  In application no. 43076/07, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006.

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  In application no. 41803/11, the applicant also raised a complaint under another provision of the Convention.

14.  The Court has examined the application 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, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of the applicant who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.

17.  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 criminal proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 41803/11 inadmissible;

 

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

 

4.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

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 18 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

          Karen Reid                                                         Vincent A. De Gaetano
            Registrar                                                                      President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of criminal 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	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	43076/07 20/09/2007	Lidiya Ivanovna Sherstneva 22/06/1953		23/04/1999	26/12/2008	9 years, 8 months and 4 days 2 levels of jurisdiction	Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings: more than 8 years	3,900
2.	27297/08 31/05/2008	Sergiy Oleksandrovych Lebedev 21/09/1954		22/09/2000	17/02/2010	9 years, 4 months and 27 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		1,800
3.	29804/08 11/06/2008	Yevgen Vasylyovych Kozyuberda 18/06/1961		23/12/1999	04/11/2008	8 years, 10 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		1,800
4.	51120/08 13/10/2008	Valentina Dmitriyevna Verzun 01/09/1951		06/11/1998	15/04/2008	9 years, 5 months and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		1,800
5.	3141/10 02/01/2010	Pavel Valentinovich Semenov 24/12/1960	Vasiliy Grigoryevich Avramenko Ilovaysk	21/01/2003	03/07/2009	6 years, 5 months and 13 days 2 levels of jurisdiction		1,500
6.	41803/11 29/06/2011	Vladimir Nikolayevich Petin 09/04/1949		21/03/2003	19/11/2012	9 years, 7 months and 30 days 2 levels of jurisdiction		3,000
7.	71847/12 10/10/2012	Ivan Fedorovich Matan 12/10/1966		21/08/2005	26/12/2013	8 years, 4 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		0

 




---

[1]  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.