CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 février 2021

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3AAE10DC { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sCADA29B4 { width:197.89pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD95A1679 { width:173.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40132/19 Denys Yuriyovych MOMOT against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   February 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Ivana Jelić, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   July 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court notes that the domestic proceedings lasted about five years and seven months before three levels of jurisdiction (see the appended table) which cannot be considered excessive, in particular as the applicant and his lawyer failed to appear at certain court hearings. Thus, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Moreover, since the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 are inadmissible, it follows that he has no “arguable claim” of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded. In view of the above, the Court finds that the application is inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 March 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Liv Tigerstedt   Ivana Jelić   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application 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) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 40132/19 17/07/2019 Denys Yuriyovych MOMOT 1991 05/02/2014 21/08/2019 5 years and 6   months and 17 days   3 levels of jurisdiction