CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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. 56042/07 Mariya Petrovna DYOMINA against Ukraine and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   December 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 respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some of the applicants, 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 (see, for example, Yuryeva and Yuryev v. Ukraine , no. 3431/03, § 43, 31 July 2012), considers that the applicants’ complaints under this head are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. It further notes that in applications nos. 9851/08, 48227/10 and 63025/15 the applicants’ complaints have been introduced out of time. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and 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 12 January 2017.   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 Level of jurisdiction     56042/07 04/12/2007 Mariya Petrovna DYOMINA 01/01/1929   02/02/2003   29/01/2008   4 years, 11 months and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     753/08 29/11/2007 Valeriy Nikolayevich BONDAR 26/04/1954 31/07/2001   10/02/2003   31/10/2002   04/07/2007   1 year, 3 months and 1 day 3 levels of jurisdiction   4 years, 4 months and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     9851/08 19/02/2008 Mykola Vasylyovych MAZURKEVYCH 14/06/1941   11/09/1997   26/02/2004   6 years, 5 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     20369/08 12/04/2008 Valentyna Vasylivna LUKIYENKO 28/03/1982 30/11/2001   19/06/2006   14/05/2002   09/02/2008   5 months and 15 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 7 months and 22 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     59448/08 22/11/2008 Boguslav Stanislavovych SKOKOVSKYY 27/05/1952   26/09/2002   02/06/2008   5 years, 8 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     8649/09 04/02/2009 Petro Ivanovych YAREMA 26/06/1960   19/02/2003   11/12/2008   5 years, 9 months and 23 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     18435/09 27/02/2009 Lidiya Panteleyevna DERKACH 01/07/1950   21/01/2002   18/05/2007   5 years, 3 months and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     48227/10 07/08/2010 Mykola Pavlovych LOZOVYY 15/05/1947   20/06/2002   29/10/2008   6 years, 4 months and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     74637/10 07/12/2010 Svitlana Oleksandrivna BUDYNSKA 19/08/1938   31/05/2006   09/06/2010   4 years and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   63025/15 20/01/2016 Oleg Oleksandrovych VITYUTNEV 30/03/1975   01/02/2008   21/05/2015   7 years, 3 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction