25946/19;35903/21;43913/21;58414/21;1258/22

WyrokETPCz2023-06-22ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0622JUD002594619

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy przewlekłość postępowania karnego i brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego naruszyły prawa skarżących wynikające z art. 6 ust. 1 i art. 13 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że długość postępowań karnych, trwających od ponad 6 do ponad 11 lat, była nadmierna i nie spełniała wymogu „rozsądnego terminu” określonego w art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Ocena ta opierała się na kryteriach złożoności sprawy, postępowania skarżących i władz oraz znaczenia sprawy dla skarżących. Trybunał stwierdził również, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym w odniesieniu do skarg na przewlekłość postępowania, co stanowiło naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji. Trybunał powołał się na swoje ugruntowane orzecznictwo, w tym na precedens Nechay v. Ukraine, w którym stwierdzono podobne naruszenia.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący byli stronami postępowań karnych na Ukrainie, które trwały od ponad 6 lat do ponad 11 lat, a w niektórych przypadkach nadal były w toku w momencie składania skargi. Jeden ze skarżących, Viktor Yuriyovych KRUGLOV, zmarł w trakcie postępowania przed Trybunałem, a jego żona, Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova, przejęła sprawę. Skarżący zarzucali, że długość tych postępowań była nadmierna i naruszała ich prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie, a także że nie mieli dostępu do skutecznych środków odwoławczych w prawie krajowym w celu zaradzenia tej sytuacji.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał jednogłośnie: - Decyduje o połączeniu skarg. - Decyduje, że Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova ma legitymację do kontynuowania postępowania w sprawie nr 25946/19. - Uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne. - Stwierdza, że skargi ujawniają naruszenie art. 6 § 1 i art. 13 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością postępowań karnych i brakiem skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym. - Orzeka, że pozwane państwo ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które mają być przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego po kursie obowiązującym w dniu zapłaty. - Orzeka, że od upływu wyżej wymienionych trzech miesięcy do dnia zapłaty, odsetki ustawowe będą naliczane od powyższych kwot według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki plus trzy punkty procentowe.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KRUGLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 25946/19 and 4 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 June 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kruglov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2023, 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. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5. 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 Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova 6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 25946/19, the Court notes that the applicant died on 20 May 2020 while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova, has requested to pursue the application in her husband’s stead. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007, and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 7. 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. 8. 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). 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12. 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 13. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14. 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; Decides that Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova, the wife of the applicant in application no. 25946/19, has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead; 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 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 22 June 2023, 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 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] 25946/19 07/05/2019 Viktor Yuriyovych KRUGLOV Deceased in 2020 Heir Olena Oleksandrivna Kruhlova Mytsyk Oleg Volodymyrovych Lviv 10/08/2012 20/05/2020 7 years and 9 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,200 35903/21 08/07/2021 Igor Leonidovych CHUPRYNSKYY 28/10/2016 pending More than 6 years and 6 months and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 43913/21 18/08/2021 Oleksandr Andriyovych VELYCHKO Sobyna Pavlo Mykolayovych Okhtyrka 20/01/2011 18/02/2021 10 years and 1 month 3 levels of jurisdiction 2,400 58414/21 22/11/2021 Yulianna Volodymyrivna PROKOPENKO Atamanchuk Valentyn Ivanovych Odesa 08/09/2011 pending More than 11 years and 7 months and 27 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 3,600 1258/22 17/12/2021 Olga Vasylivna GNIDASH 22/09/2011 17/06/2021 9 years and 8 months and 27 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 2,400 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.