European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ASHAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 24329/08 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 517 (14 June 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/517.html
Cite as: CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD002432908, [2018] ECHR 517, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD002432908

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ASHAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 24329/08 and 6 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

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

In the case of Ashayev and Others v. Ukraine,

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

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

Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2018,

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 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 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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."

13. 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.

14. 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

(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 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtYonko Grozev
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	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]
	24329/08 14/05/2008	Aleksey Dmitriyevich Ashayev 17/12/1948		05/11/1997 27/08/2000	06/07/1999 15/11/2007	1 year, 8 months and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 7 years, 2 months and 20 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,300
	32126/11 17/05/2011	Lyudmila Grigoryevna Denisenko 10/05/1942		12/07/2001	12/11/2010	9 years, 4 months and 1 day 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,300
	21404/13 13/03/2013	Tetyana Sergiyivna Parpula 25/08/1974		01/11/2002 23/08/2012	11/12/2009 15/10/2012	7 years, 1 month and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1 month and 23 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	600
	23464/14 22/02/2014	Volodymyr Ivanovych Matviyets 31/03/1963		21/12/1999	21/08/2013	13 years, 8 months and 1 day 3 levels of jurisdiction	4,400
	56394/17 23/07/2017	Agroremtekhservis 24/01/2002	Bogdan Vasylyovych Fokiy Chernivtsi	04/04/2007	24/01/2017	9 years, 9 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	2,400
	70768/17 15/09/2017	Ivan Yuriyovych Baloga 16/03/1952	Volodymyr Ivanovych Mytrovtsiy Uzhgorod	09/11/2006	15/03/2017	10 years, 4 months and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	3,100
	72706/17 26/09/2017	Iryna Ivanivna Tetereva 10/08/1951		19/03/2008	05/04/2017	9 years and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,800

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