44844/17;71985/17;19944/18;13637/19;4563/20;25284/20;23297/23;27980/23;5714/24
WyrokETPCz2024-11-28ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1128JUD004484417
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy przewlekłość postępowań cywilnych i brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym naruszyły prawo do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6 ust. 1) oraz prawo do skutecznego środka odwoławczego (art. 13) Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że ogólna długość postępowań cywilnych na poziomie krajowym była nadmierna i nie spełniała wymogu „rozsądnego terminu”, nie znajdując żadnych faktów ani argumentów zdolnych uzasadnić to opóźnienie. Ponadto, Trybunał stwierdził, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w odniesieniu do tych skarg, co stanowiło naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji. Rozstrzygnięcie oparto na ugruntowanym orzecznictwie Trybunału w podobnych sprawach.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, obywatele Ukrainy, wnieśli skargi dotyczące przewlekłości postępowań cywilnych toczących się przed sądami krajowymi. Postępowania te trwały od około 1 roku i 11 miesięcy do ponad 9 lat i 10 miesięcy, a niektóre z nich były nadal w toku w momencie składania skarg. Skarżący twierdzili również, że nie mieli skutecznego środka odwoławczego w związku z tą przewlekłością.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał postanowił połączyć skargi, uznał je za dopuszczalne i stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 § 1 oraz art. 13 Konwencji. Zasądził od państwa pozwanego na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, płatne w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami za zwłokę.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MATYASHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 44844/17 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Matyashuk 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 7 November 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 28 November 2024, 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 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]
44844/17
12/06/2017
Vladyslav Kostyantynovych MATYASHUK
12/11/2014
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
71985/17
22/09/2017
Margaryta Andriyivna VELKOVA
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
13/11/2014
20/06/2022
7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,200
19944/18
10/04/2018
Anatoliy Mykolayovych SAVCHENKO
Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych
Chernigiv
20/11/2014
27/09/2022
7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,200
13637/19
01/03/2019
Andriy Anatoliyovych VITENKO
Ponomarenko Denys Vasylyovych
Odesa
06/02/2018
29/08/2023
5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 24 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
4563/20
09/01/2010
Vasyl Petrovych KOZACHUK
Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych
Kyiv
17/11/2014
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
25284/20
14/05/2020
Sergiy Mykhaylovych GRYTSAY
30/10/2014
24/05/2021
6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 25 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,800
23297/23
15/05/2023
Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna SHVETS
Akhramovych Yan Igorovych
Kyiv
13/03/2019
11/10/2023
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,100
27980/23
29/06/2023
Viktoriya Oleksiyivna ILYINA
Akhramovych Yan Igorovych
Kyiv
Proceedings no. 1
12/07/2018
Proceedings no. 2
13/03/2019
Proceedings no. 1
pending
Proceedings no. 2
pending
Proceedings no. 1
More than 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Proceedings no. 2
More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,500
5714/24
01/02/2024
Dmytro Borysovych YUROVSKYY
24/02/2022
07/02/2024
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 15 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło