CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s930C6BC8 { width:152pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { 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. 52920/20 Pavlo Borysovych GOLUBENKO against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov, President,   Lado Chanturia,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Actig Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25   November 2020, 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 was represented by Mr S.O. Kulbach, a lawyer practising in Limoges. 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, the Court, having examined all the materials 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), considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable. In particular, it accepts that the criminal case was a complex one, involving several defendants and charges of multiple episodes of the criminal activity. It further notes that the significant length of the proceedings is largely attributable to the conduct of the defendants and their lawyers related to their numerous requests and challenges to the judicial panel and their failure to appear at a large number of hearings. Without deciding whether the parties’ conduct amounted to the abuse of their procedural rights, the Court takes note of the defendants’ and their legal teams’ actions which caused major delays in the proceedings. Specifically, the Court observes that the defendants’ legal teams lodged around twenty-five unsuccessful motions challenging various, even minor, procedural actions of the investigation and the court, thus warranting a separate procedural act by the trial court.   They also failed to attend over thirty-five hearings which each time resulted in the postponement of up to few months requiring the trial court to re-summon the parties, witnesses and experts, and to prepare a hearing anew. Finally, the Court does not lose sight of an excessive number (over ten) of challenges to the judicial bench that the defendants lodged, which each time called for the postponement of the case until that matter was resolved. Although the defendants cannot be blamed for using the avenues available to them under the domestic law, they must accept that such actions necessarily prolong the proceedings and should thus bear the consequences of such prolongations. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is 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 concerning the lack of any effective remedy for his complaint about the length of the proceedings. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. 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. It follows that 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 18 November 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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 52920/20 25/11/2020 Pavlo Borysovych GOLUBENKO 1985 14/07/2015 pending More than 6 years and 2 months   1 level of jurisdiction