{"id":1085,"date":"2019-04-17T16:01:46","date_gmt":"2019-04-17T16:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1085"},"modified":"2021-09-22T12:08:21","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T12:08:21","slug":"case-of-shumelna-v-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1085","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF SHUMELNA v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SHUMELNA v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 10494\/18)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Shumelna v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161Mits,
\nLadoChanturia, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 21\u00a0February 2018.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr D.S. Kucherenko, a lawyer practising in Zaporizhzhya.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 AND\u00a0ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complainedthat the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement and that she had no effective remedy in this connection. She relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n

Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n

Article\u00a013<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, (no. 23786\/02, 30\u00a0November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786\/02, \u00a7\u00a7 61 and 66, 30 November 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that it discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n		Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nDate of birth <\/strong><\/td>\n		Start of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nEnd of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal length Levels of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
10494\/18
\n21\/02\/2018<\/td>\n		ValentynaVasylivnaShumelna<\/strong>
\n22\/05\/1956<\/td>\n		21\/03\/2005<\/td>\npending<\/td>\nMore than 13 years, 9 months and 20 days
\n3 levels of jurisdiction<\/td>\n		4,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n