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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s44D84940 { page-break-before:left; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s9D678D1D { margin-left:13.95pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s745D60E8 { width:4.94%; 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 } .s431C6079 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B92D0A9 { width:19.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA0196FFB { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s967C2AB0 { width:9.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94753806 { width:9.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE1D0D8F7 { width:17.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s41EA106C { width:15.92%; 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 } .sAE3C90DD { width:4.94%; 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 } .s18813265 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA11FCDC8 { width:19.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s839ECF00 { width:14.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s659EAE36 { width:9.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF63A0CC3 { width:9.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D8F6704 { width:17.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8DD8284A { width:15.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 ANTIMONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 54734/12 and 12 other applications - see appended table)                             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   5 November 2015       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Antimonova 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 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 cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9   November 2004; 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.     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, 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. 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 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 Russian roubles for application no. 35302/14 and to Ukrainian hryvnias for remaining applications 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 / Nationality 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]     54734/12 13/08/2012 Nadezhda Leontyevna ANTIMONOVA 15/11/1983       01/07/2006   pending   9 year(s) and 1 month(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,600     54672/13 15/08/2013 Sergiy Volenovych ARTEMENKO 29/08/1963   Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna Кyiv 25/11/2005   20/02/2013   7 year(s) and 3 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900     68941/13 26/10/2013 Mariya Volodymyrivna MURAVSKA 16/11/1949   Pavlyshyn Yuriy Mykolayovych Odesa 14/08/2006   15/05/2013   6 year(s) and 9 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900     72862/13 15/11/2013 Ganna Vitaliyivna KRYUCHKOVA 07/02/1973       17/10/2006   16/08/2011   04/08/2010   08/08/2013   3 year(s) and 10 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   2 year(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500     76691/13 22/11/2013 Larysa Ivanivna TKACHENKO 17/09/1976       13/07/2001   15/11/2013   12 year(s) and 4 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,500     2633/14 10/12/2013 Yelena Timofeyevna KHIMENKO 30/03/1946       27/03/2008   23/01/2014   5 year(s) and 10 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500     5780/14 24/02/2014 Kateryna Anatoliyivna MYRONENKO 07/04/1966       01/12/2006   24/10/2013   6 year(s) and 11 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900     7902/14 18/09/2013 Oleg Borysovych TYKHENKO 29/01/1957       16/01/2007   27/03/2013   6 year(s) and 2 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 600     13914/14 03/02/2014 Svitlana Yevgenivna LUNYEVA 21/11/1956       08/10/2008   17/09/2014   5 year(s) and 11 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500   35302/14 26/03/2014 Arnold Adilbekovich TADEYEV 31/08/1938       26/04/1999   10/12/2013   14 year(s) and 7 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,800   36916/14 07/04/2014 Anatoliy Volodymyrovych NESTERYUK 22/04/1953       10/12/2007   23/01/2014   6 year(s) and 1 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 300   37394/14 03/05/2014 Emil Orestovych PAVLYUK 27/02/1962       10/11/2006   24/10/2013   6 year(s) and 11 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900   52049/14 14/07/2014 Svitlana Oleksandrivna KORDIYAKA 18/01/1971       24/09/2004   05/02/2013   19/01/2011   24/12/2013   6 year(s) and 4 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   0 year(s) and 11 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.