FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF VOLCHKOV A AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

( Application no. 14062/05 and 5 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 June 2017

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Volchkov a and Others v. Ukraine ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Iuli a Motoc , Marko Bošnjak , judges , and Karen Reid, Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 18 May 2017 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 13

“Everyone 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.”

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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII).

8. In 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.

9. Having 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 “reasonable time” requirement.

10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12. The applicants in application no. 14062/05 submitted other complaints , under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4, which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006) .

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. The applicants in application no. 14062/05 further raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14. The 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 criteri a set out in Articles 34 and 35 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.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If 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.”

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17. The 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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings , the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 14062/05 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings ;

4. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted, except for application no. 47788/13, into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 June 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Karen Reid Vincent A. De Gaetano 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 name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

14062/05

05/04/2005

(3 applicants)

Yelen a Ivanovn a Volchkova

02/05/1954

Yuriy Anatolyevich Volchkov

08/03/1976

Nataly a Anatolyevn a Lazurenko

18/10/1971

04/09/2000

15/10/2007

7 years, 1 month and 12 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond: from October 2000 till 19/02/2007 the applicants ’ freedom of movement was restricted as a result of the undertaking not to abscond

1,200

6995/06

27/01/2006

Mikhail Mikhaylovich Balabanov

20/01/1978

29/10/1999

08/09/2005

5 years, 10 months and 11 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

2,000

43726/13

29/06/2013

Stanislav Anatoliyovych Vereteyko

14/12/1966

Igor Volodymyrovych Zybachynskyy

Kyiv

16/11/2005

12/02/2013

7 years, 2 months and 28 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

47788/13

16/07/2013

Valeriy Ivanovich Volchanskiy

30/03/1980

20/01/2001

24/01/2013

12 years and 5 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

3,600

66724/13

14/10/2013

Vladislav Ivanovich Dubovoy

25/08/1967

13/08/2002

23/04/2013

10 years, 8 months and 11 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

3,600

2164/14

13/12/2013

Sergiy Sergiyovych Tolskyy

24/05/1987

09/10/2008

26/07/2013

4 years, 9 months and 18 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

1,200

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