CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s60EA9207 { width:177.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; 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 } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9069/08 Ivan Oleksiyovych BABENKO against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   April 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, 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, 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”). In application no. 32425/10 the applicant 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 the 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). In particular, in application no. 49128/08 it follows from case-file materials that the applicant herself greatly contributed to the overall duration of the proceedings by supplementing and amending her claims, failing to appear before the courts, changing her representatives etc., causing rescheduling of the hearing more than 70 times. Although a party to civil proceedings cannot be blamed for using the avenues available to her under domestic law in order to protect her interests, she must accept that such actions necessarily prolong the proceedings concerned (see Timotiyevich v. Ukraine (dec.), 63158/00, 18 May 2004). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints The applicant in application no. 32425/10 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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 application 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 18 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   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     9069/08 26/12/2007 Ivan Oleksiyovych Babenko 13/05/1937 02/12/2002   21/11/2007   4 years, 11 months and 20 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     49128/08 24/09/2008 Galina Grigoryevna Girko 21/10/1937 21/08/2000   14/04/2008   7 years, 7 months and 25 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     32425/10 18/05/2010 Oleksandr Ivanovych Miroshnyk 17/06/1959 18/09/2002     16/07/2003     28/03/2005     26/06/2006     21/04/2009   07/11/2002     01/12/2003     14/06/2005     02/07/2008     12/02/2010   1 month and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   4 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2 years and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   9 months and 23 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     10330/13 14/01/2013 Ivan Ivanovych Sytnyk 04/11/1941 02/04/2007     01/11/2008     10/02/2009   01/04/2009     01/09/2010     14/09/2010     31/12/2010     14/01/2011     06/08/2012 01/08/2007     08/12/2010     30/11/2010   22/03/2010     08/09/2011     08/09/2011     12/07/2012     20/12/2011     20/05/2013 4 months 1 level of jurisdiction   2 years, 1 month and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 9 months and 21 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 11 months and 22 days   2 levels of jurisdiction   1 year and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   11 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1 year, 6 months and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   11 months and 7 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   9 months and 15 days 2 levels of jurisdiction     76305/13 25/11/2013 Lyudmyla Mykhaylivna Lisovska 20/03/1951 09/06/2006     22/02/2010   26/11/2007     10/06/2013   1 year, 5 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   3 years, 3 months and 20 days 3 levels of jurisdiction