22429/23;5185/24;14971/24;17286/24;19121/24;20179/24;23176/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF POPOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 22429/23 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 3 April 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Popova and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Sârcu, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2025, 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 criminal 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 7.  In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds 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 criminal proceedings; 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 3 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal 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]     22429/23 01/06/2023 Larysa Vasylivna POPOVA   Fedosin Artem Viktorovych Puddletown 19/09/2011   25/07/2023   11 years and 10 months and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 3,600     5185/24 03/02/2024 Vitaliy Oleksandrovych SURZHAN   Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich Kropyvnystkyy 15/05/2016   30/04/2024   7 years and 11 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     14971/24 14/05/2024 Gennadiy Mykolayovych KONYEV   Podosinov Andriy Oleksandrovych Kyiv 27/10/2016   24/01/2024   7 years and 2 months and 29 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,800     17286/24 30/05/2024 Sergiy Pavlovych PRYKHODKO   Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych Kyiv 28/11/2014   pending   More than 10 years and 3 months 1 level of jurisdiction   4,200     19121/24 29/06/2024 Oleg MOLIN       29/05/2014   pending   More than 10 years and 9 months 1 level of jurisdiction   4,200     20179/24 05/07/2024 Oleksandr Yukhymovych RABZI   Glazov Oleksiy Olegovych Odesa 05/02/2013   05/03/2024   11 years and 1 month and 1 day 2 levels of jurisdiction 3,600     23176/24 29/07/2024 Leonid Borysovych MYTKO       06/11/2009   pending   More than 15 years and 3 months and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 6,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.