The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Kazmina and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits, President, Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants 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. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 AND\u00a0ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853\/02, 30\u00a0November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cDonetsk People\u2019s Republic\u201d and the \u201cLuhansk People\u2019s Republic\u201d began operating, seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force. A ceasefire line was later put in place (see\u00a0Vyshnyakov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a025612\/12, \u00a7 20, 24 July 2018, and Burgas\u00a0v.\u00a0Ukraine [Committee], no. 8976\/07, \u00a7\u00a026, 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\u2019s 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, \u00a7 39). Having\u00a0regard 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (c) Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 7822\/12.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention<\/p>\n (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 7822\/12 and 7 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2023<\/p>\n
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n