CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 janvier 2017

.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 } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s8C2BF086 { width:220.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24759/08 Inna Volodymyrivna KLYMENKO and others against Ukraine and 7 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Møse, President,   Yonko Grozev,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Karen Reid, 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, considers that the applicants’ complaints under this head are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable (see, Yuryeva and Yuryev v.   Ukraine , no. 3431/03, § 43, 31 July 2012). Furthermore, applications nos.   24759/08 and 2657/11 were 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 16 February 2017.   Karen Reid   Erik Møse   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     24759/08 19/05/2008 (5 applicants) Household Inna Volodymyrivna Klymenko 07/11/1976 Andriy Oleksandrovych Klymenko 30/04/2003 Oleksandra Oleksandrivna Klymenko 08/11/1996 Olena Mykolayivna Klymenko 08/12/1950 Olena Vasylivna Nesteruk 13/03/1955 28/03/2001   07/11/2007   6 years, 7 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       31383/08 19/06/2008 (2 applicants) Household Polina Yevtikhiyevna Sichkar 15/11/1923 Vyacheslav Yevgeniyevich Sichkar 12/08/1955   11/07/2000     17/07/2006     04/06/2009   23/01/2002     15/04/2008     22/10/2009   1 year, 6 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 8 months and 30 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   4 months and 19 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     2657/11 24/12/2010 Gennadiy Antonovych Simolchuk 01/01/1965 24/11/2003 08/02/2008 4 years, 2 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     10811/13 03/02/2013 Timur Oleksandrovych Dzhenyuk 13/03/1974 18/06/2007   25/09/2012   5 years, 3 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     76672/13 26/11/2013 Petro Ivanovych Nikolenko 15/03/1949 27/08/2007     05/02/2010   28/09/2007     30/05/2013   1 month and 2 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   3 years, 3 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     54187/14 22/07/2014 Sergiy Mykolayovych Zenkovets 16/08/1965 First set of proceedings 26/04/2006     24/04/2007     Second set of proceedings 19/11/2012       02/11/2006     22/12/2009         24/01/2014       6 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years, 7 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       1 year, 2 months and 6 days 1 level of jurisdiction     1915/15 23/12/2014 Olga Mykolayivna Moskova 06/09/1981 11/12/2008   10/07/2014   5 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction     51649/15 05/10/2015 Mykhaylo Fedorovych Glynyanskyy 21/11/1944 03/08/2009     03/06/2011   10/11/2010     07/04/2015   1 year, 3 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   3 years, 10 months and 5 days 3 levels of jurisdiction