CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .sAE4916B8 { width:96.07pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3220/20 Bogdan Vitaliyovych SALIMOV against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   December 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr O.S. Rozumovskyy , a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. 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 In the present application, having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example,   Merit   v.   Ukraine , no.   66561/01 , 30 March 2004), the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention related to the length of the proceedings are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It follows that there is no “arguable claim” of a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications is incompatible ratione   materiae with the provision of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 and   Article   13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 3220/20 17/12/2019 Bogdan Vitaliyovych SALIMOV 1995   23/07/2013 08/08/2019 6 years and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction