7822/12;17153/15;27439/16;30402/17;42366/17;72492/17;1234/18;47138/20

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 7822/12 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kazmina 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 23 November 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 civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. 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 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. In application no. 7822/12 the applicant complained about the length of proceedings, which she joined as a civil claimant on 2 August 2009. Proceedings were pending at the national level in Donetsk up to April 2014 when illegal armed groups associated with two self-proclaimed entities known as the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” began operating, seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force. A ceasefire line was later put in place (see Vyshnyakov v. Ukraine, no. 25612/12, § 20, 24 July 2018, and Burgas v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 8976/07, § 26, 18 December 2018). However, for the purposes of the examination of the present case, it is not necessary to determine whether the respondent State may be held responsible for the length of consideration of the applicant’s civil claim after that date. The Court will proceed with assessing the period preceding the outbreak of hostilities (see, for the same approach, Burgas, cited above, § 39). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  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. 7822/12. 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; (c)  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 7822/12. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, 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]     7822/12 23/01/2012 Svetlana Pavlovna KAZMINA Medvedskiy Dmitriy Ivanovich Brovary 02/08/2009   pending   More than 14 years and 2 months and 10 days   1 level of jurisdiction   1,500     17153/15 30/03/2015 Petro Petrovych YURA Kurganska Olena Viktorivna Rivne 20/12/2002   30/10/2014   11 years and 10 months and 11 days   3 levels of jurisdiction   3,600     27439/16 27/04/2016 Ivan Ivanovych KARPENKO Levytskyy Oleg Volodymyrovych Kyiv 12/03/2008   29/10/2015   7 years and 7 months and 18 days   3 levels of jurisdiction   1,200     30402/17 13/04/2017 Mykola Ivanovych GOSHOVSKYY Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 06/11/2014   26/02/2021   6 years and 3 months and 21 days   3 levels of jurisdiction       42366/17 25/05/2017 Vadym Mykolayovych KUTOVYY Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 27/11/2014   30/08/2022   7 years and 9 months and 4 days   1 level of jurisdiction   3,000     72492/17 22/09/2017 Eduard Yevgenovych TOMIN Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 10/11/2014   23/06/2021   6 years and 7 months and 14 days   3 levels of jurisdiction     1234/18 29/12/2017 Oleksiy Viktorovych LYTVYSHKO Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 12/11/2014   20/07/2022   7 years and 8 months and 9 days   2 levels of jurisdiction   2,100     47138/20 28/09/2020 Sergiy Yaroslavovych MAYKO Kravchuk Petro Ivanovych Lviv 05/11/2015   pending   More than 7 years and 10 months and 28 days   1 level of jurisdiction   3,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.