1229/18;45633/20;8590/22;4593/23;19205/23;20653/23;21553/23;23313/23;27320/23

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BARAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 1229/18 and 8 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Baran and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Carlo Ranzoni, President,  Mārtiņš Mits,  María Elósegui, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. THE LAW  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. THE LOCUS STANDI OF MRs Kateryna Lyudvygivna BARAN IN APPLICATION NO. 1229/18 5.  The Court notes that the applicant in application no. 1229/18 died on 1 December 2020, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Mrs Kateryna Lyudvygivna Baran, has requested to pursue the application on her late husband’s behalf. The Court observes that in various cases, where applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the wishes of their heirs or close members of their families to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, X. v.France, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26, and Jama v. Slovenia, no. 48163/08, § 28, 19 July 2012). It sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case and, therefore, accepts that the applicant’s wife, Mrs Kateryna Lyudvygivna Baran, can pursue the application initially brought by him. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 7.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Decides that Mrs Kateryna Lyudvygivna Baran, the widow of the applicant in application no. 1229/18, has locus standi in the proceedings; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of 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; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications 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) No. 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]     1229/18 29/12/2017 Ivan Mykhaylovych BARAN Deceased in 2020   Heir: Kateryna Lyudvygivna BARAN Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 01/12/2014   25/11/2020   5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,800     45633/20 30/09/2020 Vitaliy Volodymyrovych SAVOCHKA Kucherenko Denys Sergiyovych Zaporizhzhya 27/01/2006   11/06/2020   14 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 4,800     8590/22 01/02/2022 Oleksandra Oleksiyivna BARANOVA Pogibko Oleksandr Olegovych Odesa 17/11/2016   20/04/2023   6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,100     4593/23 05/01/2023 Gennadiy Gennadiyovych KORZHEVSKYY     21/07/2014   19/09/2022   8 year(s) and 2 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     19205/23 25/04/2023 Valeriy Anatoliyovych KIM     15/12/2015 22/08/2019   16/11/2016 pending   More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500     20653/23 02/05/2023 Gennadiy Avgustovych POLONSKYY Subota Mykhaylo Ivanovych Uzhgorod 05/05/2016   28/02/2023   6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction     21553/23 09/05/2023 Volodymyr Yuriyovych GUBCHUK     08/07/2016   23/01/2023   6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction     23313/23 17/05/2023 Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna KOVACH     14/06/2016 27/11/2020   15/10/2020 16/01/2023 (the final decision was served on the applicant on 30/01/2023) 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction     27320/23 26/06/2023 Ivan Ivanovych CHORNYY Dmytrenko Volodymyr Pavlovych Lviv 27/03/2015   24/04/2023   8 year(s) and 29 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.