CASE OF KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE – 7822/12 and 7 others

Last Updated on December 14, 2023 by LawEuro

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

European Court of Human Rights
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

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.

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.

III. 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,

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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;

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 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)[i]
1.	7822/12 23/01/2012	Svetlana Pavlovna KAZMINA 1953	Medvedskiy Dmitriy Ivanovich Brovary	02/08/2009	pending	More than 14 years and 2 months and 10 days 1 level of jurisdiction	1,500
2.	17153/15 30/03/2015	Petro Petrovych YURA 1945	Kurganska Olena Viktorivna Rivne	20/12/2002	30/10/2014	11 years and 10 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	3,600
3.	27439/16 27/04/2016	Ivan Ivanovych KARPENKO 1973	Levytskyy Oleg Volodymyrovych Kyiv	12/03/2008	29/10/2015	7 years and 7 months and 18 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
4.	30402/17 13/04/2017	Mykola Ivanovych GOSHOVSKYY 1960	Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv	06/11/2014	26/02/2021	6 years and 3 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	500
5.	42366/17 25/05/2017	Vadym Mykolayovych KUTOVYY 1972	Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv	27/11/2014	30/08/2022	7 years and 9 months and 4 days 1 level of jurisdiction	3,000
6.	72492/17 22/09/2017	Eduard Yevgenovych TOMIN 1981	Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv	10/11/2014	23/06/2021	6 years and 7 months and 14 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	900
7.	1234/18 29/12/2017	Oleksiy Viktorovych LYTVYSHKO 1977	Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv	12/11/2014	20/07/2022	7 years and 8 months and 9 days 2 levels of jurisdiction	2,100
8.	47138/20 28/09/2020	Sergiy Yaroslavovych MAYKO 1965	Kravchuk Petro Ivanovych Lviv	05/11/2015	pending	More than 7 years and 10 months and 28 days 1 level of jurisdiction	3,000

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply