[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KULYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 6747/04 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 1046 (24 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/1046.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2016:1124JUD000674704, [2016] ECHR 1046, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1124JUD000674704

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KULYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 6747/04 and 9 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 November 2016

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

 




In the case of Kulyk and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
          Faris Vehabović,
          Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

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 applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  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.

II.  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, which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal ...”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

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 cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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.

III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  In applications nos. 10879/08, 11888/08, 51146/08 and 41732/09 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of applicants who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit their just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.

17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 10879/08, 11888/08, 51146/08 and 41732/09 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

 

4.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

5.  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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                                Khanlar Hajiyev
     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 name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length Levels of jurisdiction	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros)[1]
1.	6747/04 19/01/2004	Grigoriy Ivanovich KULYK 09/11/1949		15/05/2000	06/08/2007	7 years, 2 months and 23 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions - Lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of 2 March 2004 of the Mykytivskyy District Court of Gorlivka, which partly allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered his employer, the penitentiary authority, to pay him moral damages and promote him to a special military rank. The decision of 2 March 2004 was enforced in full on 19 August 2011.	2,600
2.	38832/07 13/08/2007	Andriy Mykhaylovych KNYZHNYK 13/01/1957		23/06/2000	27/02/2007	6 years, 8 months and 5 days 2 levels of jurisdiction		0
3.	7828/08 04/02/2008	Olena Prokopivna IVANOVA 12/01/1965		22/09/2005	29/03/2012	6 years, 6 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		0
4.	10879/08 11/02/2008	Gennadiy Borisovich MOSKALENKO 17/04/1966		01/09/1999	03/10/2007	8 years, 1 months and 3 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		1,200
5.	11888/08 23/02/2008	Natalya Vladislavovna MYGLAN 17/06/1962		11/09/1997	14/09/2009	12 years, 4 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		4,700
6.	26043/08 16/05/2008 (1 household)	Household   Igor Ivanovych BORZILOV 01/12/1963    Dmytro Igorovych BORZILOV 27/01/1990   Iryna Oleksandrivna BORZILOVA 30/04/1963		14/11/2000	16/12/2011	11 years, 1 month and 3 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		3,000
7.	50512/08 13/10/2008	Mariya Ivanivna VARLAMOVA 28/08/1946		14/11/2002	18/09/2008	5 years, 10 months and 5 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		500
8.	51146/08 15/10/2008	Vadym Igorevych CHMUTENKO 28/04/1969		10/05/2001	06/06/2007	6 years and 28 days  3 levels of jurisdiction		500
9.	41732/09 14/07/2009	Svitlana Mefodiyivna PASTUKH 04/10/1940		28/05/2002	11/06/2009	7 years and 15 days 3 levels of jurisdiction		600
10.	54472/12 08/08/2012	Mykola Panasovych BONDAR 07/03/1964	Yuriy Vitaliyovych Koltonyuk Lutsk	19/12/2005	19/11/2011	5 years, 11 months and 1 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine 19/10/2011	2,600

 

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.