6403/17;16082/17;24906/17;39209/17;31434/18;56100/21;32022/22;23902/23;708/24;7254/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GOSHOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 6403/17 and 9 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Goshovskyy 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 21 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. 3.  The Government objected to the examination of application no. 16082/17 by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS 4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 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 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. 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.  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. 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. 16082/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. 13.  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 14.  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 and rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicant in application no. 16082/17. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of application no. 16082/17 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction in application no. 16082/17. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 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]     6403/17 13/01/2017 Volodymyr Sergiyovych GOSHOVSKYY   Samoylenko Anna Vasylivna Kyiv 14/11/2014   pending   More than 9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400     16082/17 17/02/2017 Eduard Vasylyovych SUKONKIN   Yamayeva Yuliya Sergiyivna Zaporizhzhya 21/04/2015   02/05/2024   9 year(s) and 12 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,800     24906/17 24/03/2017 Oleksandr Vasylyovych PRYKHODKO   Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 01/11/2014   20/07/2023   8 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,800     39209/17 23/05/2017 Mykola Ivanovych MYCHKO       12/11/2014   14/07/2022   7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     31434/18 05/06/2018 Eduard Mykolayovych GREBENYUK   Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 18/11/2014   pending   More than 9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400     56100/21 02/11/2021 Lyudmyla Mykhaylivna ALEKSYEYENKO       29/07/2015   pending   More than 9 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 3 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,600     32022/22 13/06/2022 Yuriy Oleksandrovych MARCHENKO   Derkach Veronika Valeriyivna Kyiv 27/08/2015   02/06/2023   7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,000     23902/23 24/05/2023 Volodymyr Mykolayovych USPENSKYY       08/09/2015   30/11/2023   8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 23 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,100     708/24 19/12/2023 Iryna Arturivna VLADYMYRETS   Kanikayev Yuriy Olegovych Odesa 13/12/2018   pending   More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,800   7254/24 29/02/2024 Nataliya Grygorivna SKUS   Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych Kyiv 02/11/2019   pending   More than 5 year(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.