CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1A23316 { width:198.1pt; 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. 36102/07 Stepan Ivanovych YURCHENKO against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3   November 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 since 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 §§   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 24 November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Level of jurisdiction     36102/07 02/08/2007 Stepan Ivanovych YURCHENKO 10/12/1959 07/11/2002   19/09/2007   4 years, 10 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction         43816/07 09/03/2007 Aleksey Leontyevich BONDAR 07/05/1959 22/12/2003   27/06/2007   3 years, 6 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction         51770/08 17/10/2008 Petr Vasilyevich VINOGRADCHIY 11/01/1946 18/02/1999   11/11/2003   19/10/1999   21/04/2008   8 months and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   4 years, 5 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       48971/13 24/07/2013 Yuriy Volodymyrovych KOVALYOV 31/10/1970   28/08/2007   25/01/2013   5 years, 4 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction