CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s294F11C8 { width:3.2pt; display:inline-block } .s983700E8 { width:196.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31386/05 Olga Andreyevna DEREVYANKO against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 29   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, considers that the applicants’ complaints under this head are inadmissible for the following reasons: in application no. 74269/11 the proceedings in question concern neither the criminal charge against the applicant, nor his civil rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Garimpo v. Portugal , no. 66752/01, (dec.), 10 June 2004); applications nos. 18266/08 and 3469/10 were introduced out of time and in applications nos. 31386/05, 28938/06, 50428/06, and 42025/07 the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1, 3 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Level of jurisdiction     31386/05 16/08/2005 Olga Andreyevna DEREVYANKO 09/04/1955     11/11/2002   20/12/2007   5 years, 1 month and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       28938/06 05/07/2006 Viktor Mykolayovych KIRYANOV 01/01/1950     01/09/2000   25/10/2005   5 years, 1 month and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       50428/06 12/10/2006 Svitlana Mykolayivna ZHELEZNOVA 28/10/1948   Applicant died on 21/12/2012. Her husband, Stanislav Arsentiyovich ZHELEZNOV, has the quality of heir.       28/08/2001   30/12/2004   29/11/2006   14/03/2007   5 years, 3 months and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 2 months and 15 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     42025/07 25/09/2007 Viktor Vasilyevich SEVASTYANOV 06/08/1937     29/10/2001   04/07/2007   5 years, 8 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       18266/08 01/04/2008 Aleksey Valentinovich YANKOVSKIY 27/04/1975     11/09/1997   12/07/2007   9 years, 10 months and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       3469/10 01/12/2009 Lidiya Yakovlevna NECHAY 10/09/1959 Sergey Gennadyevich Kozlov Sevastopol 26/01/2001   31/05/2007   6 years, 4 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       74269/11 25/11/2011 Valentyn Vasylyovych BEREZYNETS 10/04/1944     12/09/2003   24/05/2011   7 years, 8 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction