CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s6AED2ED5 { width:194.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s7E7E78A { height:10.4pt } .s9FFFF8A4 { width:4.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s34E49363 { width:9.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A619118 { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4DE9DE { width:11.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s849054A2 { width:9.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1A810B9D { width:8.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s922CFB6E { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s21713D45 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2BDC7508 { width:4.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C0F3A58 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF18EF3B1 { width:9.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3341B7AF { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAD166573 { width:11.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1725DE53 { width:9.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9A55B77 { width:8.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7821266 { width:15.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7E4500 { height:36.2pt } .sDB576575 { height:31.85pt } .sDA754500 { height:32.9pt } .s63B28A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIFTH SECTION                     CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 8237/06 and 13 other applications – see appended table)                           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   5   November 2015       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pavlov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15   October 2015, 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. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other 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 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 cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004, and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 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 by which to submit their length-of-proceedings 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.     Some applicants raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16.     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 civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention;   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 5   November 2015, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Karen Reid   Angelika Nußberger   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   Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     8237/06 18/02/2006 Vasiliy Valisyevich PAVLOV 27/10/1942     01/04/2004   26/01/2010   5 years and 10 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 500     18036/08 03/04/2008 Anatoliy Oleksandrovych ZELENENKYY 04/08/1957     11/09/1997   04/09/2006   9 years 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,300     57511/09 20/10/2009 Viktor Grigoryevich DUPAK 24/05/1955     01/07/1999   30/06/2009   10 years 3 levels of jurisdiction 2,400     22809/12 09/04/2012 Grygoriy Viktorovych KRAMAR 28/01/1969     01/05/1999   28/10/2011   12 years and 6 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 3,600     54439/12 07/08/2012 Lidiya Zosimovna SIMENICHENKO 28/04/1945     01/06/1999   15/02/2012   12 years and 8 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 5,500     62350/12 21/09/2012 Raisa Timofeyevna RUSSAKOVA 17/12/1939     24/05/1999         12/11/2008   20/12/2003         07/02/2012   4 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   3 years and 3 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,200     75716/12 21/11/2012 Vladimir Grigoryevich POUKH 10/09/1946     06/03/2006   01/06/2012   6 years and 3 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 600     78970/12 28/11/2012 Grigoriy Nikolayevich SHEVCHENKO 15/01/1949     28/04/2005   05/07/2012   7 years and 2 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,200     80842/12 01/12/2012 Sergiy Anatoliyovych DANILOV 03/03/1956     03/04/2006   25/02/2013   6 years and 11 months 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,300   8362/13 24/01/2013 Larysa Pavlivna CHORNA 18/11/1956 Aleksandr Anatolyevich SHYYAN 02/03/1977 Yakymenko Sergiy Georgiyovych Kryvyy Rig 01/01/2007   04/02/2013   6 years and 1 month 3 levels of jurisdiction 500   23815/13 12/11/2012 Volodymyr Volodymyrovych PAVLIV 13/08/1952     25/10/2005   22/05/2012   6 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 600   31335/13 19/04/2013 Borys Oleksiyovych NIKOLENKO 05/04/1938     13/04/2004   29/10/2012   8 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,800   36794/13 20/05/2013 Tatyana Valentinovna NALIVAYKO 07/05/1961     07/02/2005   28/11/2012   7 years and 10 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 800   69357/13 24/10/2013 Nataliya Leontiyivna TARAN 18/06/1962     06/01/2004   27/03/2013   9 years and 3 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,300   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.