FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SAFONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
\n(Applications nos. 19156\/07 and 3 others –
\nsee appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n20 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Safonovaand Others v. Ukraine,<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2018,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.The applicant in application no.\u00a019156\/07 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a0 6 \u00a7 1 AND ARTICLE\u00a013 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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 \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
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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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
8.\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
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 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
10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0In application no.\u00a019156\/07 the applicant submitted another complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 which raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court in relation to unreasonable delay in civil proceedings (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Krasnoshapka v.\u00a0Ukraine, (no. 23786\/02, 30\u00a0November 2006).<\/p>\n
IV.\u00a0\u00a0REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in application no. 19156\/07 further raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined the application and 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n
It follows that this part of application no. 19156\/07 must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
15.\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
16.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307\/05, \u00a7 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n
17.\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\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table,admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of application no.\u00a019156\/07 inadmissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 and Article\u00a013 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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)\u00a0\u00a0that 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
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2018, 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
Acting 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<\/p>\n
List of applications 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