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 } .s9B2EDA5A { width:3.5%; 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 } .s18E818F5 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s536AFC25 { width:24.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7DF1C281 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB7264CA1 { width:17.88%; 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 } .sABD3E7AF { width:14.82%; 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 } .s5D0010CF { width:3.5%; 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 } .s94971193 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCD65DE3B { width:24.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83C0F899 { width:7.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE4B143C8 { width:17.88%; 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 } .s699BD69A { width:14.82%; 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 KIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 19451/04 and 7 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 Kin 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.   42373/06 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.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     In application no. 42373/06 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.   Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009). IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     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. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, cited above, §§   109 and 112), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 17.     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 and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible   and the remainder of the applications 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 that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     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   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction   Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     19451/04 03/05/2004 Nadiya Olegivna KIN 02/06/1980 30/03/2001   12/11/2008   7 years, 7 months and 14 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     800     41402/05 28/10/2005 Oleksandr Sergiyovych PANTELEYENKO 28/09/1960 25/12/2001   23/05/2013   11 years, 4 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     3,000     5622/06 11/01/2006 Grigoriy Nikolayevich BEREZHNOY 08/09/1950 02/08/1999   02/11/2006   7 years, 3 month and 1 day 3 levels of jurisdiction     900     8747/06 21/02/2006 Georgiy Anatolyevich GALENYA 23/04/1959 07/10/2002   12/11/2002   01/02/2008   19/02/2014   5 years, 3 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   11 years, 3 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     3,000     8790/06 10/02/2006 Yuriy Mikhaylovich TISHCHENKO 20/01/1940 06/06/2001   31/07/2007   6 years, 1 month and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     500     10473/06 10/03/2006 Olga Anatolyevna KARBOVSKAYA 02/05/1954 11/09/1997   23/12/2008   11 years, 3 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     3,000     15153/06 29/03/2006 Nadezhda Grigoryevna BORISOVA 17/11/1952 15/05/2002   05/10/2009   7 years, 4 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     900     42373/06 05/10/2006 Tamara Vasilyevna POLYANSKAYA 10/11/1948 05/12/2005   07/07/2010   4 year, 7 months and 3 days 1 level of jurisdiction     Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions - Non-enforcement of final judgment adopted by Kyiv District Court of Odesa on 31   December 2004 2,600     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.