31806/16

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TKACHENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 31806/16)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 June 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Tkachenko 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 30 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 May 2016. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr V. V. Savko, a lawyer practising in Dnipro. 3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 5.  The applicant complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant 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 applicant did not have at his 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.  The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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 sum indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 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 applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 20 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application 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) 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] 31806/16 17/05/2016 Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych TKACHENKO Savko Vitaliy Viktorovych Dnipro 14/11/2011   pending   More than 12 year(s) and 5 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   4,200     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.