CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 28 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 3391/17 Igor Stepanovych ZVARYCH against Ukraine lodged on 12 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Igor Stepanovych Zvarych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962. He is currently being detained in Lviv. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.A. Gudyma, a lawyer practising in Lviv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 2 December 2008 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, a judge, for bribery (the prosecuting authorities suspected that he had received some 100,000 euros in bribes). On 18 December 2008 the Parliament of Ukraine dismissed the applicant for breach of oath. On 16 January 2009 the applicant brought court proceedings against his dismissal. On 9 September 2009 the Lviv Circuit Administrative Court (“the Lviv Court”) allowed an application by the applicant for the proceedings to be suspended until a final decision had been handed down in his criminal case. On 6 November 2012, the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court, by a final decision, generally upheld the lower court decisions, which convicted the applicant of bribery and sentenced him to ten years in jail, a three-year ban on occupying judicial and administrative posts in state institutions and to the confiscation of his property. On 11 October 2013, the Lviv Court resumed the civil proceedings. On 24 October 2013 it decided to transfer the case to the Higher Administrative Court (“the HACU”), finding that that court had subject matter jurisdiction. The applicant appealed, which was allowed on 8 May 2014 by the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, which remitted the case to the Lviv Court. On 9 December 2014 the Lviv Court, at Parliament’s request, deferred jurisdiction over the applicant’s case to the Chernihiv Circuit Administrative Court (“the Chernihiv Court”), on the grounds that the applicant was serving his sentence in the Chernihiv Region. On 2 February 2015 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant appealed in cassation, asking for his case to be transmitted back to the Lviv Court. On 28 July 2016 the HACU terminated the cassation proceedings as under domestic law there could be no appeal against such decisions in cassation. On 22 August 2016, the Chernihiv Court sent the case to the Lviv Court but on 28 November 2016 the Lviv Court transferred it to the HACU, referring again to its subject matter jurisdiction. An appeal by the applicant against the decision of 28 November 2016 is still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings in his civil case is incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy before a national authority in respect of his allegation under Article 6 § 1 that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have his case considered within a reasonable time?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy before a national authority guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his allegation under Article 6 § 1 that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time?