CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 juin 2018

.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 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCB95FA7E { width:189.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }         FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF SKIDAN AND ZINKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE   (Applications nos. 52321/14 and 34951/17 )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   28 June 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Skidan and Zinkovskyy v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 June 2018, 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. The applicant in application no. 52321/14 also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention. 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.     The applicant in application no. 52321/14 also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention. 13.     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, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does 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. 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. 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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible,   and the remainder of application no. 52321/14 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting 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 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]     52321/14 16/06/2014 Roman Viktorovich Skidan 01/11/1979 02/09/2009 23/06/2014 4 years, 9 months and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1,200     34951/17 05/05/2017 Vyacheslav Valentynovych Zinkovskyy 01/02/1955 19/03/2012 28/11/2016 4 years, 8 months and 10 days 1 level of jurisdiction 1,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.