42664/21;49639/21;56948/21;907/22;1909/22;6592/22;10526/22;11498/22;16627/22;28859/22;31377/22

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 42664/21 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 July 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bondarenko 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 29 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. In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally 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. 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, 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). 8.  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. 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. 13.  The Court has examined this complaint 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, it either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 14.  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.” 15.  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 complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible and the remainder of application no. 56948/21 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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 20 July 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]     42664/21 16/08/2021 Viktor Igorovych BONDARENKO Yama Dmytro Mykolayovych Zaporizhhzya 21/12/2013   18/03/2021   7 years and 2 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction       49639/21 29/09/2021 Olena Borysivna KOZLOVETS Makhmutov Oleg Arturovych Mykolayiv 19/06/2018   14/12/2021   3 years and 5 months and 26 days 1 level of jurisdiction       56948/21 10/11/2021 Sergiy Viktorovych KANDRASHYN Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 06/11/2012   13/12/2022   10 years and 1 month and 8 days 1 level of jurisdiction   5,500     907/22 18/12/2021 Vitaliy Andriyovych MIROSHNYCHENKO Bondarenko Oleg Grygorovych Dniprio 17/08/2012   30/09/2022   10 years and 1 month and 14 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2,400     1909/22 29/12/2021 Andriy Gennadiyovych KRUPODER Shapoval Olena Viktorivna Kyiv 25/08/2015   pending   More than 7 years and 9 months and 15 days 1 level of jurisdiction   3,000     6592/22 24/01/2022 Sergiy Sergiyovych OLIYNYK Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich Lysychansk 16/07/2018   27/09/2021   3 years and 2 months and 12 days 1 level of jurisdiction       10526/22 24/01/2022 Yevgeniya Volodymyrivna OLIYNYK Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich Lysychansk 27/06/2018   18/08/2021   3 years and 1 months and 23 days 1 level of jurisdiction       11498/22 16/02/2022 Vladyslav Mykolayovych MOROZOV     12/11/2010   17/08/2021   10 years and 9 months and 6 days 1 level of jurisdiction   4,800     16627/22 23/02/2022 Mykola Sergiyovych YURCHENKO Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 15/05/2014   pending   More than 9 years and 25 days 1 level of jurisdiction   3,600   28859/22 16/05/2022 Volodymyr Mykhaylovych POGORILYAK Bukhtoyarova alias Andreykovych Oksana Vasylivna Uzhgorod 04/04/2014   pending   More than 9 years and 2 months and 5 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   2,400   31377/22 02/06/2022 Viktor Petrovych KYTSYUK Podosinov Andriy Oleksandrovych Kyiv 22/12/2014   03/02/2022   7 years and 1 month and 13 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.