CASE OF PIVDENBUDTRANS, ZAT AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 29455/06;53152/08;53995/08;14819/09;72724/14;3416/15;37977/16 • ECHR ID: 001-173492
Document date: May 18, 2017
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
F OUR TH SECTION
CASE OF PIVDENBUDTRANS, ZAT AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
( Application no. 29455/06 and 6 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 May 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pivdenbudtrans , ZAT and Others v. Ukraine ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Four th Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus KÅ«ris , Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , judges, and Karen Reid , Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 27 April 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 civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no. 14819/09, the applicant 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 civil 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 his civil rights and obligations ... 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading cases of Svetlan a Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006, 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 on 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 . REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 14819/09, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Svetlan a Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of application no. 14819/09 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings ;
4. Holds
(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;
(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.
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims in application no. 14819/09 for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 May 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 civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law )
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant / household
(in euros) [1]
29455/06
05/04/2006
Pivdenbudtrans , ZAT
24/06/1997
Volodymyr Mykhaylovych Lopushanskyy
Yuzhnoukrainsk
18/09/2002
11/06/2013
10 years, 8 months and 25 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
3,000
53152/08
21/10/2008
Tatyan a Ivanovn a Shumakova
29/07/1952
24/12/2001
01/08/2008
6 years, 7 months and 9 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
53995/08
24/10/2008
Household
Lyudmyl a Grygorivn a Svitlychna
23/04/1947
Olen a Volodymyrivn a Volodina
30/03/1973
Ann a Volodymyrivn a Astakhova
27/07/1985
Nin a Vasylivn a Ivanova
Dnipropetrivsk
14/08/2001
08/04/2008
6 years,7 months and 26 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
14819/09
03/03/2009
Viktor Semenovych Sabelnykov
03/06/1941
21/04/2003
23/02/2009
5 years, 10 months and 3 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
400
72724/14
11/11/2014
Nadiy a Borysivn a Tkachuk
24/12/1958
Anastasiy a Valeriyivn a Serbina
Makiyivka
17/04/2007
22/05/2014
7 years, 1 month and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
600
3416/15
26/11/2013
Sergiy Petrovych Yarmonov
19/02/1955
04/12/2007
05/06/2013
5 years, 6 months and 2 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
500
37977/16
11/06/2016
Pivdenbudtrans , ZAT
24/06/1997
24/01/2003
25/04/2005
26/10/2009
17/03/2010
06/04/2004
22/06/2009
09/12/2009
pending
1 year, 2 months and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4 years, 1 month and 29 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1 month and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
More than 7 years
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.