CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 octobre 2022

.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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sAE4916B8 { width:96.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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. 19867/21 Viktor Ivanovych BRATKO against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20   October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   March 2021, 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. He was represented by Mr I.V. Stolyarchuk, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 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 considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaints about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about the length are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that on 26 April 2016 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted and since 24 January 2018 the applicant is a fugitive and his whereabouts are unclear. The criminal proceedings are still pending. It appears from the case file that the applicant’s conduct delayed the proceedings and thus he cannot reproach the authorities for the period spent as a fugitive. When an accused person flees from a State which adheres to the principle of the rule of law, it may be presumed that he is not entitled to complain of the unreasonable duration of proceedings after he has fled, unless he can provide sufficient reasons to rebut this presumption (see Vayiç v. Turkey , no. 18078/02, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII (extracts)), which the applicant failed to do in the present case. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints under Article   6 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. The Court, having found the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible, concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, § 82, 27 May 2008). The applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention is thus likewise manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected under 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 November 2022.     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 19867/21 17/03/2021 Viktor Ivanovych BRATKO 1951 26/04/2016   pending   More than 6 years and 3   months and 10 days 1 level of jurisdiction