[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZHURAVEL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 53967/07 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 1137 (20 December 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/1137.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2016:1220JUD005396707, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1220JUD005396707, [2016] ECHR 1137

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

 

 

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

 

 

CASE OF ZHURAVEL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 53967/07 and 5 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

20 December 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Zhuravel 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 1 December 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.

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 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.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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.”

13.  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.

14.  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 applications admissible;

 

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

 

4.  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 20 December 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	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	53967/07 29/11/2007	Nikolay Petrovich ZHURAVEL 22/05/1949   Applicant died on 18/10/2012. His son, Roman Nikolayevich Zhuravel has the quality of heir.		11/09/1997	02/07/2007	9 years, 9 months and 22 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	2,400
2.	47800/09 17/08/2009	Mykola Oleksiyovych LYUBCHENKO 20/02/1953		04/07/2003	15/05/2009	5 years, 10 months and 12 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	500
3.	26292/10 19/04/2010	Zoya Gavrylivna YAROSHEVSKA 02/01/1946		08/04/2003	22/12/2009	6 years, 8 months and 15 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	900
4.	23464/11 25/03/2011	Lyudmyla Leonidivna KRASNIKOVA 19/04/1952		24/02/2004	31/01/2011	6 years, 11 months and 8 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
5.	32214/11 12/05/2011	Leonid Andriyovych FROLOV 30/08/1943	Viktoriya Mykolayivna Nikolayenko Kharkiv	29/09/2004	14/12/2010	6 years, 2 months and 16 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	500
6.	14721/15 17/03/2015	Lidiya Vasylivna KIYACHEK 28/03/1942		05/06/2008	22/10/2014	6 years, 4 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	500

 




---

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