19907/18;30982/18;34489/18;47097/18;31747/22;34178/22;50117/22;14692/23

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PYEVNYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 19907/18 and 7 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 March 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Pyevnyev and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Mārtiņš Mits, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 February 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 5.  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. 6.  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). 7.  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. 8.  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. 9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 10.  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 11.  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; 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 14 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits  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]     19907/18 10/04/2018 Oleksandr Sergiyovych PYEVNYEV Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 21/11/2014   31/03/2021   6 years and 4 months and 11 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     30982/18 25/06/2018 Mykhaylo Sergiyovych MELNYK Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 07/04/2015   22/01/2021   5 years and 9 months and 16 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     34489/18 20/07/2018 Andriy Vasylyovych BAKAY Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 10/11/2014   19/02/2021   6 years and 3 months and 10 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     47097/18 25/09/2018 Vyacheslav Yuriyovych YAKUNIN Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 23/12/2014   02/06/2022   7 years and 5 months and 11 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     31747/22 07/06/2022 Volodymyr Eduardovych FILATOV Paranich Andriy Mykolayovych Kyiv 24/05/2018   16/11/2022   4 years and 5 months and 24 days   2 levels of jurisdiction       34178/22 22/06/2022  SAMSON-IF, TOV Podolyak Vladyslav Grygorovych Kyiv 21/05/2015   23/12/2021   6 years and 7 months and 3 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     50117/22 10/10/2022 Valeriy Ivanovych KYTSYA Rusin Tetyana Sergiyivna Varash Rivne region 27/02/2015 05/05/2020   26/09/2019 23/06/2022   6 years and 8 months and 19 days   3 levels of jurisdiction       14692/23 15/03/2023 Andriy Mykolayovych SYDORENKO Reynish Leonid Valeriyovych Kotsyubynske 05/03/2015   13/12/2022   7 years and 9 months and 9 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.