6295/17;18376/17;23943/17;42791/17;19926/18;47105/18;49026/18;986/19;20890/19;20909/19;44695/19

WyrokETPCz2024-01-18ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0118JUD000629517

Analiza orzeczenia

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

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy przewlekłość postępowania cywilnego i brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym naruszyły prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie z art. 6 ust. 1 oraz prawo do skutecznego środka odwoławczego z art. 13 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał, odwołując się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa, w tym sprawy Frydlender v. France i Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, stwierdził, że długość postępowań cywilnych w sprawach skarżących była nadmierna i nie spełniała wymogu „rozsądnego terminu” z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Trybunał uznał również, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w odniesieniu do tych skarg, co stanowiło naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji. Brak uzasadnienia dla ogólnej długości postępowań na poziomie krajowym doprowadził do stwierdzenia naruszeń.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący wnieśli skargi dotyczące nadmiernej długości postępowań cywilnych w Ukrainie, które trwały od ponad 5 lat i 5 miesięcy do ponad 8 lat i 7 miesięcy, często na trzech poziomach jurysdykcji. W większości spraw postępowania krajowe zostały zakończone, z wyjątkiem jednej, która nadal była w toku. Skarżący zarzucali również brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie ukraińskim w odniesieniu do tych skarg.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: postanawia połączyć skargi; uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne; stwierdza, że skargi ujawniają naruszenie art. 6 § 1 i art. 13 Konwencji w zakresie nadmiernej długości postępowań cywilnych i braku skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym; zasądza na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, płatne w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami ustawowymi w przypadku opóźnienia.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOZACHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 6295/17 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 January 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kozachuk and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Mārtiņš Mits, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 December 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. 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 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits  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]     6295/17 06/01/2017 Mykhaylo Vasylyovych KOZACHUK     17/04/2015   pending   More than 8 years and 7 months and 7 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,800     18376/17 22/02/2017 Leonid Vasylyovych LAKHTYUK Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 20/11/2014   10/12/2020   6 years and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     23943/17 13/03/2017 Andriy Mykhaylovych STOYKA Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 17/04/2015   09/06/2021   6 years and 1 month and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     42791/17 02/06/2017 Anatoliy Sydorovych KHOMYCH     17/11/2014   02/11/2021   6 years and 11 months and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     19926/18 17/04/2018 Oleg Vasylyovych KEREVYCH Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 04/11/2014   11/11/2020   6 years and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     47105/18 25/09/2018 Oleksandr Volodymyrovych CHALYY Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 25/11/2014   15/03/2021   6 years and 3 months and 19 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     49026/18 05/10/2018 Tetyana Mykhaylivna SOKOLENKO Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 06/04/2015   22/06/2021   6 years and 2 months and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction     986/19 06/12/2018 Sergiy Mykolayovych KHYMCHENKO Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 17/11/2014   26/04/2022   7 years and 5 months and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,200     20890/19 08/04/2019 Volodymyr Viktorovych PETRUNENKO Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 12/11/2014   29/07/2022   7 years and 8 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 1,600   20909/19 08/04/2019 Grygoriy Vasylyovych POLKOVNIOV Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 08/06/2015   12/11/2020   5 years and 5 months and 5 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,200   44695/19 15/08/2019 Vira Fedorivna SHULYAKOVA Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 17/12/2014   22/10/2021   6 years and 10 months and 6 days 3 levels 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