CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG29
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0516DEC004641022
- Date
- 16 mai 2024
- Publication
- 16 mai 2024
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleInadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .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. 46410/22 Mykhaylo Yevgenovych ZOLOTOV against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   September 2022, 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 was represented by Ms K.Y. Gubska, a lawyer practising in Odesa, Ukraine. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government raised the issue of compliance with the 4-month time ‑ limit, however, the Court considers that, in particular circumstances of the case, there is no need to decide on this matter in view of the following. The Court, having examined all the materials submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, considers that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention are inadmissible since the length of the proceedings was not excessive or unreasonable (see Gusev v. Ukraine , no.   25531/12, § 37-38, 14 January 2021). As regards the lack of any effective remedy for complaints raised above, the Court, considering its findings under Article 6 of the Convention, concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article   13 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 46410/22 13/09/2022 Mykhaylo Yevgenovych ZOLOTOV 1997 Gubska Khrystyna Yuriyivna Odesa 27/09/2018   01/02/2022   3 years and 4 months and 6 days   2 levels of jurisdiction    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 29
- Date
- 16 mai 2024
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0516DEC004641022
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral