FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SHOLOKH v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 73007\/14)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 April 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Sholokh 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, Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/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 7 November 2014.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the application was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 AND ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complainedthat the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention, which read as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal…\u201d<\/p>\n Article 13<\/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 6.\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, among many other authorities, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a025444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011II, and Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011VII).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561\/01, 30 March 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 8.\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 as to 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 9.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 11.\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 12.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 3,600 as just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 13.\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,<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal 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 11 April 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\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 <\/p>\n APPENDIX Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n Levels of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\n (in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 07\/11\/2014<\/td>\n 10\/02\/1957<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2 levels of jurisdiction<\/p>\n <\/td>\n [1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161Mits,
\nLadoChanturia, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\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
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Start of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n End of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n Total length<\/strong><\/p>\n Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 73007\/14<\/p>\n Oleksandr Oleksandrovych Sholokh<\/strong><\/p>\n 31\/03\/2008<\/p>\n pending<\/p>\n More than 10 years, 10 months and 26 days<\/p>\n 3,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n