European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF SEMYRODA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 45879/07 and 4 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

12 October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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




In the case of Semyroda and Others v. Ukraine,

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

          Nona Tsotsoria, President,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
          Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 September 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. The applicant in application no. 45879/07 also raised another complaint 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 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.

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.  In application no. 45879/07 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.”

14.  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.

15.  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 applications admissible;

 

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

 

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                                Nona Tsotsoria
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	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.	45879/07 09/10/2007	Lyubov Vasylivna Semyroda 15/10/1947		09/02/2000	18/04/2007	7 years, 2 months and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement of the decision of the Oktyabrskyy Local Court of Poltava of 26 January 2006 awarding damages to the applicant from the state enterprise.	2,600
2.	29589/11 04/05/2011	Tetyana Sergiyivna Gorbenko 16/06/1954	Sergiy Sergiyovych Ponomaryov Belogorsk	29/03/2005	22/05/2012	7 years, 1 month and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		900
3.	31510/11 12/05/2011	Ivan Ivanovych Spasov 22/08/1967		23/05/2001	30/11/2010	9 years, 6 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		2,400
4.	15986/16 16/03/2016	Zinayida Dmytrivna Chirkova 14/10/1949	Dmytro Oleksandrovych Dovbyshev Odesa	12/10/2006     31/07/2007     18/09/2014	16/05/2007     12/12/2012     01/09/2015	7 months and 5 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   5 years, 4 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   11 months and 15 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		900
5.	59784/16 06/10/2016	Tetyana Vitaliyivna Onyshchak 26/07/1989		14/08/2009	07/04/2016	6 years, 7 months and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		900

 




---

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