Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

( Application no. 24686/07 and 8 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 April 2017

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

In the case of Dudnikov and Others v. Ukraine ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth 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 16 March 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 . 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 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. After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 1326/08 concerning the proceedings between 3 February 1997 and 10 September 1997 must be dismissed as incompatible ratione temporis , the Convention having entered into force in respect of Ukraine on 11 September 1997.

8. Also, the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 45407/10 concerning the proceedings between 23 March and 23 November 2011 must be dismissed as they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

9. As regards the other complaints raised under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, 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).

10. In the leading cases of Svetlana 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.

11. 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.

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

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

III . REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

15. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16. 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.”

17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Svetlana 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.

18. 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 raised by the applicant in application no. 1326/08 concerning the proceedings between 3 February 1997 and 10 September 1997, and the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 45407/10 concerning the proceedings between 23 March and 23 November 2011, inadmissible;

3. Declares the other complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

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

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 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 6 April 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

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]

24686/07

06/06/2007

Anatoliy Andreyevich Dudnikov

22/12/1938

06/12/1999

03/01/2007

7 years and 29 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1,200

45673/07

10/10/2007

Yaroslav Valentynovych Dobrokhanskyy

26/09/1971

11/08/2003

12/06/2011

7 years, 10 months and 2 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

800

1326/08

13/12/2007

Valentina Vlasovna Bogatova

03/01/1948

11/09/1997

08/05/2007

9 years, 7 months and 28 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

2,400

24811/08

12/05/2008

Mykola Vasylyovych Gumennyy

20/07/1948

28/11/2001

27/04/2009

16/12/2008

10/09/2010

7 years and 19 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1 year, 4 months and 15 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

1,200

30130/08

10/06/2008

Household

Tatyana Mikhaylovna Tishchenko

28/06/1952

Nikolay Vladimirovich Tishchenko

14/04/1973

Vladimir Vladimirovich Tishchenko

11/11/1975

14/02/2001

17/12/2008

7 years, 10 months and 4 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

1,500

46207/08

12/09/2008

Lyubov Oleksandrivna Kladko

07/04/1962

09/10/2000

13/03/2008

7 years, 5 months and 5 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

5867/09

19/01/2009

(26 applicants)

Ganna Gerasymivna Yurchenko

11/06/1943

Yevgeniya Kyrylivna Grygoryan

11/05/1952

Larysa Kuzmivna Uporova

27/05/1959

Tosya Trokhymivna Ryasna

06/08/1938

Vira Grygorivna Grytsenko

09/02/1953

Anzhela Anatoliyivna Ivanichenko

04/01/1971

Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna Koropova

10/07/1944

Tetyana Vasylivna Bobukh

09/11/1954

Tetyana Kyrylivna Plakhotnyuk

10/08/1959

Svitlana Ivanivna Slipchenko

25/07/1966

Rayisa Mykolayivna Shemshur

10/09/1941

Lyubov Sergiyivna Martynova

24/10/1944

Nataliya Ivanivna Marunych

21/03/1957

Tamara Yevgenivna Ageyenko

03/10/1959

Iryna Valeriyivna Bryzhata

31/01/1972

Ganna Ivanivna Donets

15/10/1946

Tamara Ivanivna Kozinets

05/02/1944

Galyna Grygorivna Kotenko

16/09/1960

Nataliya Grygorivna Kravchenko

08/08/1958

Lyudmyla Danylivna Levytska

02/07/1958

Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna Medvedyeva

08/03/1958

Svitlana Saveliyivna Pastukhova

11/01/1949

Vira Volodymyrivna Petrenko

28/02/1963

Lyubov Mykolayivna Rogachova

23/04/1961

Valentyna Vasylivna Rudychenko

23/07/1948

Valentyna Pavlivna Sirenko

17/02/1949

14/04/2003

21/01/2008

25/09/2007

05/12/2011

4 years, 5 months and 12 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

3 years, 10 months and 15 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

29330/09

20/05/2009

Lyubov Semenovna Pyshna

11/08/1960

01/04/1999

21/01/2009

9 years, 9 months and 21 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

2,400

45407/10

15/07/2010

Galyna Ivanivna Myronova

17/10/1955

17/10/2003

09/11/2009

6 years and 24 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

350[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

LEXI