CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBA6BCE26 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7CB9B7E8 { width:117.08pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .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 } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41183/16 Aleksandrs SIMONS against Latvia and 2 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Latvian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW    Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.    Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 that the length of civil proceedings before the domestic courts had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the length of the civil proceedings are inadmissible. The Court has found that an effective remedy was available in Latvia to provide redress for the alleged grievances. In particular, the Court has established that the compensatory remedy based on Article 92 of the Constitution was applicable to claims concerning the length of civil proceedings (see Guravska v. Latvia (dec.), no. 41553/18, §§ 29-34, 7   July 2020). The availability of a remedy said to exist, including its scope and application must be clearly set out and confirmed or complemented by practice or case-law that dates back to the period before the application was lodged with the Court (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no.   42219/07, §   88, 9   July   2015, and Guravska , cited above, § 24). The case-law accepted by the Court as sufficiently establishing the effectiveness and availability in theory and in practice of a compensatory remedy for the length of civil proceedings based on Article 92 of the Constitution dates back to 31   March   2016 (see Guravska , cited above, §§   17, 30). In particular, the Court finds that the said remedy existed already before the present applications were lodged. The Court observes that the applicants were required to avail themselves of this legal avenue. The applicants have not established that this remedy was in fact used, or that it was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances exempting them from this requirement (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §   77, 25   March   2014, and Gherghina, cited above, §   89). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Kateřina Šimáčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court file number     41183/16 15/07/2016 Aleksandrs SIMONS 1990     29/05/2007   15/01/2016   8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C04304407       41230/16 12/07/2016 Zigurds ŠTELMAHERS 1960     06/03/2008   18/01/2016   7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C30202108       45798/16 02/08/2016   AS VENTSPILS TIRDZNIECĪBAS OSTA 1994 Loze Jānis Riga 29/01/2008   18/02/2016   8 year(s) and 21 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction C02030008