Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PANKRATOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 45358/20 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pankratov and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
StéphanieMourou-Vikström, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,
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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.In application no. 53153/20 the applicant 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 criminal 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 … any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8. In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. In application no. 53153/20, the applicant submitted another complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention which also raised issues, given 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 Ivanov v. Ukraine, (no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 53153/20, the applicant raised further complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court 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 application no. 53153/20 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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
17. The Court further 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 criminal 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 application no. 53153/20 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention as regards the complaint raised in application no. 53153/20;
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 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal 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 |
Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 45358/20
08/10/2020 |
Igor Sergiyovych PANKRATOV
1967 |
KulbachSergiyOleksandrovych
Limoges |
14/04/2017
|
pending
|
More than 5 years and 5 months and 2 days 2 levels of jurisdiction
|
800 | |
| 2. | 53153/20
27/11/2020 |
Iryna Nazarivna MUZYKA
1959 |
BemMarkiyanVolodymyrovych
Kyiv |
29/04/2010
|
pending
|
More than 12 years and 4 months and 18 days
1 level of jurisdiction
|
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) – excessive length of obligation not to abscond
– the applicant has been under the undertaking not to abscond as of 13/07/2010, for more than 10 years and 3 months |
7,000 |
| 3. | 9916/21
03/02/2021 |
Roman Myronovych LEVYTSKYY
1967 |
Mytsyk Oleg Volodymyrovych
Lviv |
23/08/2006
|
pending
|
More than 16 years and 24 days
1 level of jurisdiction |
7,800 | |
| 4. | 25401/21
29/04/2021 |
Volodymyr Stanislavovych SHYNDERUK
1970 |
SobynaPavloMykolayovych
Okhtyrka |
31/12/2014
|
pending
|
More than 7 years and 8 months and 16 days
2 levels of jurisdiction |
2,100 | |
| 5. | 33469/21
18/06/2021 |
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych PETRENKO
1980 |
|
02/07/2007
|
pending
|
More than 15 years and 2 months and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction |
5,400 | |
| 6. | 36713/21
10/07/2021 |
GrygoriySergiyovych SAVCHENKO
1987 |
SobynaPavloMykolayovych
Okhtyrka |
25/05/2013
|
pending
|
More than 9 years and 3 months and 22 days
2 levels of jurisdiction |
2,400 | |
| 7. | 37881/21
19/07/2021 |
YuriyVyacheslavovych SEMIOSHKO
1985 |
Ulyanov Oleg Vitaliyovych
Kyiv |
09/02/2018
|
pending
|
More than 4 years and 7 months and 7 days
1 level of jurisdiction |
1,500 | |
| 8. | 41048/21
04/08/2021 |
Igor Viktorovych BLOSHKO
1969 |
Sulyma Vadym Volodymyrovych
Mykolayiv |
20/05/2011
|
pending
|
More than 11 years and 3 months and 27 days
2 levels of jurisdiction |
3,600 | |
| 9. | 43045/21
18/08/2021 |
Vyacheslav Vasylyovych SHETELYA
1983 |
|
27/01/2009
|
pending
|
More than 13 years and 7 months and 20 days
2 levels of jurisdiction |
5,400 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply