European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KORNIYENKO AND CHERTAN v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 59668/09)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 April 2024

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

In the case of Korniyenko and Chertan v. Ukraine,

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

 Mārtiņš Mits, President,
 Kateřina Šimáčková,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 26 October 
2009.

2.  The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

THE LAW

1. Victim status of Mr Y. CHERTAN (Second applicant)

4.  The Court has examined the application and considers that Mr Yevgeniy Yuryevich Chertan, the second applicant, lacks victim status because he was not a party to the domestic proceedings, the excessive length of which the applicants complained about.

It follows that the application, in so far as it concerns the second applicant, is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court will examine the current application only with respect to the first applicant, Ms V. Korniyenko.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The first applicant 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. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

6.  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).

7.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.

9.  The Court further notes that the first applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the first applicant the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, in so far as they concern the first applicant, Ms V. Korniyenko, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law with respect to the first applicant;
3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application 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)

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