FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33078/19 Rodion Vitaliyovych KHARAKOZ against Ukraine and 2 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 February 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Ivana Jelić , President, Ganna Yudkivska , Arnfinn Bårdsen , judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision .

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .

The Government acknowledged the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . They offered to pay the applicants the amount s detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount s would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case s .

The applicant s were sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant s accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant s wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Merit v.Ukraine , no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see, Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 March 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention

(excessive length of criminal 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

Date of receipt

of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt

of applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded

for pecuniary and

non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

33078/19 03/06/2019

Rodion Vitaliyovych KHARAKOZ 1992

Sergiy Oleksandrovych Kulbach Limoges

18/11/2020

10/12/2020

1,890

33085/19 03/06/2019

Renat Vitaliyovych KHARAKOZ 1987

Sergiy Oleksandrovych Kulbach Limoges

18/11/2020

10/12/2020

1,890

33283/19 15/06/2019

Vitaliy Mykolayovych KHARAKOZ 1966

Sergiy Mykolayovych Rybiy Dnipro

18/11/2020

10/12/2020

1,890

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