BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> VOLYANSKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 32035/20 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 466 (08 June 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/466.html

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF VOLYANSKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 32035/20 and 8 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

8 June 2023

 

 

 

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

 


In the case of Volyanska and Others v. Ukraine,


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

          Carlo Ranzoni, President,
          Lado Chanturia,
          María Elósegui, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,


Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2023,


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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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.


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 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.


9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having also reiterated the three-month extension of the six-month time-limit for lodging an application, introduced on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022), 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.


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, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;

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 8 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                              Carlo Ranzoni

    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’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length Levels of jurisdiction

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]

 

32035/20

23/07/2020

Larysa Volodymyrivna VOLYANSKA

1952

Leshchenko

Andriy Viktorovych

Odesa

07/12/2008

14/08/2015

 

27/05/2013

25/09/2019 (decision received on 31/10/2019)

8 years and 7 months and

3 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1,300

 

12800/21

22/02/2021

Myroslava Mykhaylivna BUTRYN

1984

 

 

27/07/2012

03/11/2020

8 years and 3 months and

8 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1,200

 

36546/21

05/07/2021

Vira Mykolayivna BULGAKOVA

1952

 

 

08/07/2008

01/02/2021

12 years and 6 months and

25 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

4,200

 

47412/21

14/09/2021

Oleksandr Yevgeniyovych MAKSYMYKHIN

1985

 

 

10/03/2017

16/02/2023

5 years and 11 months and

7 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

1,500

 

48342/21

20/09/2021

Valeriy Grygorovych CHERNENKO

1961

 

 

23/04/2013

08/04/2021

7 years and 11 months and

17 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1,200

 

52163/21

13/10/2021

Ruslan Vasylyovych MUDRYK

1973

Chernilevska Ruslana Vitaliyivna

Vinnytsya

31/07/2014

14/04/2021

6 years and 8 months and

15 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

 

57524/21

14/11/2021

Valeriy Ivanovych PANCHENKO

1963

Chernilevska Ruslana Vitaliyivna

Vinnytsya

31/07/2014

14/04/2021

(received by the applicant on 17/05/2021)

6 years and 8 months and

15 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

 

59492/21

02/12/2021

Olena Ivanivna VOROBEY

1970

 

 

29/08/2011

03/06/2021

9 years and 9 months and

6 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

2,400

 

5871/22

19/01/2022

Volodymyr Ivanovych BEREGOVYY

1956

 

 

17/04/2013

21/11/2014

20/03/2014

21/07/2021

7 years and 7 months and

5 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

 



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


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/466.html