CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sEC8C8B80 { width:186.95pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s915B8526 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE708DE41 { width:3.14%; 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 } .s87633CC0 { width:10.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s218A9EC3 { width:20.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1E4E3B1D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2370F9E4 { width:6.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC171CA8F { width:15.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA508736 { width:13.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s691540AC { width:8.1%; 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 } .sA0549D41 { width:3.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3C0F3A58 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD5F37F0E { width:10.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1C472CB { width:20.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s80D1569D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB40F651E { width:6.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD2021F { width:15.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F6E3E1B { width:13.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s855B731C { width:8.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF DYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 26417/08 and 8 others - see appended list )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 July 2017                 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dyachenko and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017, 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 civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no.   9783/09, the applicant 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 civil 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 his civil rights and obligations ... 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.     After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicants in application no. 26417/08 concerning the proceedings between 27 March 1997 and 10 September 1997 are incompatible ratione temporis and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as the Convention entered into force with respect to Ukraine on 11 September 1997. 8. As regards the other complaints raised under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, 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 Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 9.     In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, (no. 41984/98, 9   November 2004), and Efimenko v. Ukraine, (no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     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 on 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. 11.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and of Article   13 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.     In application no.   9783/09, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v.   Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009). 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, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§   109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 raised by the applicants in application no.   26417/08 concerning the proceedings between 27 March 1997 and 10   September 1997, inadmissible;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaint in application no. 9783/09 under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible;   4.     Holds that the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaint in application no. 9783/09 raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   6.     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.   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Nona Tsotsoria Acting 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   Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     26417/08 28/05/2008 (4 applicants) Household Sergey Aleksandrovich Dyachenko 13/08/1955   Aleksandra Ivanovna Dyachenko 05/07/1957   Aleksey Sergeyevich Dyachenko 03/07/1983   Vladimir Sergeyevich Dyachenko 07/03/1986     11/09/1997   28/12/2007   10 years, 3 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       3,100     36795/08 21/07/2008 Larisa Vasilyevna Zinovatnaya 30/08/1958     26/12/2001   19/12/2007   5 years, 11 months and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   500     9783/09 05/02/2009 Mykola Viktorovych Bychok 07/02/1948     04/01/2001   25/10/2006   5 years, 9 months and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction     Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions: The judgment of the Antratsytivskyy Local Court of Lugansk Region of 30 December 2005 enforced on 29 October 2008 2,600     826/11 01/12/2010 (3 applicants) Household Yevdokiya Grygorivna Vasyliv 12/07/1928   Orest Ostapovych Tsyurak 09/02/1974   Ganna Stepanivna Vasyliv 20/10/1951     18/09/2002   21/02/2013   10 years, 5 months and 4 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       2,400     50131/11 22/07/2011 Vitaliy Pavlovych Onyshchak 19/04/1952     21/02/2007   16/10/2014   7 years, 7 months and 26 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   2,100     37112/13 03/06/2013 Roman Mykhaylovych Galimon 07/03/1976     10/06/2008   28/02/2013   4 years, 8 months and 19 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1,200     43345/13 26/06/2013 Yevgeniy Stepanovych Slysh 08/11/1938 Sergiy Volodymyrovych Vyatkin Merefa 18/10/2006   21/12/2012   6 years, 2 months and 4 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     400     53634/13 08/08/2013 Inna Konstantinovna Vdovenko 19/08/1976 Vladimir Ivanovich Fedorets Zaporizhzhya 05/09/2007   18/04/2013   5 years, 7 months and 14 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   500     44853/14 26/04/2014 Viktor Petrovych Kovalchuk 21/02/1952     11/09/1997     18/10/2000 10/06/1998     12/11/2013 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   13 years and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   6,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.