CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 octobre 2016

.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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .sD5195560 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD8737946 { width:4.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCAB6698A { width:183.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A253A10 { width:190.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; 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 } .sEDF32997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s98D435A3 { width:3.26%; 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 } .sBFF09201 { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26066BE5 { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s91DACFFF { width:14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s952E3D33 { width:7.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s886916F8 { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s95420767 { width:17.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3560E0D4 { width:16.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s42366FE { width:3.26%; 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 } .s8A71A6DB { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1E4244A { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s948849BD { width:14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s91661093 { width:7.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6BA354AD { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC0799EE1 { width:17.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE51BFF3 { width:16.52%; 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 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF SEREBRYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 2592/07 and 3 others - see appended list )                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   20 October 2016       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision In the case of Serebryakova and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2016, 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 application no.   54449/10, the applicant also raised other complaints under the 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 principally 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 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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no. 54449/10, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the application 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 enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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. In application no. 2592/07 the Court does not award any sum, the applicant having failed to submit her just satisfaction claims despite having been invited to do so. 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 application no.   54449/10 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;   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 20 October 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Hasan Bakırcı   Khanlar Hajiyev 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 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 (in euros) [1]     2592/07 08/12/2006 Nina Ivanivna SEREBRYAKOVA 20/10/1931     09/09/1998   10/09/2002   25/09/2003   03/04/2002   03/02/2003   26/06/2006   3 years, 6 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   4 months and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 9 months and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   0     9017/07 08/02/2007 Oleksandr Terentiyovych PALAMARCHUK 27/04/1961     29/12/1999   21/09/2006   6 years, 8 months and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   900     54449/10 10/08/2010 Gariy Tymofiyovych RATNER 06/06/1941 Dmitriy Gariyevich Ratner Balashikha 31/10/2003   10/02/2010   6 years, 3 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   500     23954/11 04/04/2011 Lyudmila Danilovna GAPONENKO 02/05/1955 Sergiy Georgiyovych Yakymenko Kryvyy Rig 24/12/2004   07/09/2011   30/03/2011   25/04/2013   6 years, 3 months and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 7 months and 19 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.