CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 janvier 2017

.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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .s963804A6 { width:183.95pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sC45C2AB { width:3.32%; 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 } .sFF5824B1 { width:26.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C97A164 { width:15.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sE6BE634D { width:7.1%; 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 } .s3FAF4342 { width:15.9%; 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 } .s8DBDE82D { width:3.32%; 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 } .s8A71A6DB { width:8.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s37BEE81E { width:26.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23A7DF32 { width:15.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s393A4D88 { width:7.1%; 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 } .s305A9B13 { width:15.9%; 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 ARKHIPOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 39029/05 and 9 others - see appended list )                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   12 January 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Arkhipov 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 15 December 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. Some applicants 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 criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no.   25444/94, §   67, ECHR   1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII). 8.     In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004, 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 as to 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.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     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. 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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of the applicants who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit their just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. 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 criminal proceedings, 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 criminal 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.   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2017, 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 criminal 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]     39029/05 20/10/2005 Yuriy Volodymyrovych ARKHIPOV 01/03/1964       11/03/2003   26/02/2009   5 years, 11 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 0     23100/06 23/05/2006 Vadim Nikolayevich DEDOV 14/11/1981       10/02/2002   13/10/2009   7 years, 8 months and 4 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 0     3968/07 23/12/2006 Galyna Andriyivna SHELUDKO 11/08/1949   Andriy Dmytrovych Sheludko Lozova 22/08/2001   27/03/2008   6 years, 7 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 900     33593/07 22/06/2007 Irina Nikolaevna DULINOVA 08/10/1962       27/04/1999   26/12/2006   7 years and 8 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,600     4019/08 17/01/2008 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KOLOMITCHENKO 27/07/1967       13/09/2005   07/06/2012   6 years, 8 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 900     16317/08 27/03/2008 Regina KOSTETSKA 23/07/1943       06/11/1998   02/10/2007   8 years, 10 months and 27 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,800     26293/10 13/04/2010 Oleg Petrovych MELNYCHUK 02/04/1982       28/01/2009   25/09/2014   5 years, 7 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 500     13018/12 24/01/2012 Valeriy Andriyovych FUKLEV 09/12/1951     10/10/2003     10/07/2009   31/03/2006     29/05/2012   2 years, 5 months and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 10 months and 20 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,200     74393/12 16/11/2012 Andrey Andreyevich LUGIN 11/07/1976 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Lesovoy Simferopol 19/07/2005   17/05/2012   6 years, 9 months and 29 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 0   36960/13 28/05/2013 Yevgeniy Pavlovich STUPAK 09/06/1945       01/09/2010   08/07/2014   3 years, 10 months and 8 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.