CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8155/11 Aleksey Viktorovich KOVAL against Ukraine (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   June   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 25   January 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, 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 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. As regards the lack of any effective remedy for complaints raised above, 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. Consequently, this part of the application 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 8 July 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 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 8155/11 25/01/2011 Aleksey Viktorovich KOVAL 1978   10/12/2006   29/07/2010   3 years and 7 months and 20 days   2 levels of jurisdiction