CASE OF SHVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 40506/07;12722/08;42638/08;24296/11;53420/11;35684/12;65855/13;22735/16;22736/16 • ECHR ID: 001-170284
Document date: January 12, 2017
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SHVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
( Application no. 40506/07 and 8 others -
see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shvets and Others v. Ukraine ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Faris Vehabović , Carlo Ranzoni , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2016 ,
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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications 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 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Khanlar Hajiyev 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 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]
40506/07
16/08/2007
Roman Yuriyovych SHVETS
27/05/1979
06/04/2001
24/10/2005
08/08/2003
24/03/2009
2 years, 4 months and 3 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
3 years, 5 months and 1 day
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
12722/08
11/02/2008
Maksim Nikolayevich PLAKHOTIN
13/12/1981
11/09/2004
pending
More than 12 years, 3 months and 4 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
4,200
42638/08
14/08/2008
Valentina Petrovna KIRPA
27/03/1951
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Tarakhkalo
Kiev
19/06/2002
pending
More than 14 years, 5 months and 27 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
7,000
24296/11
08/04/2011
Yaroslav Mykhaylovych PIDGAYNYY
06/02/1952
10/03/2000
pending
More than 16 years, 9 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
8,600
53420/11
11/08/2011
Sergey Nikolayevich GOLUBNICHIY
21/10/1957
21/05/2001
16/02/2011
9 years, 8 months and 27 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
3,100
35684/12
05/06/2012
Valeriy Anatoliyovych RASHCHUPKO
09/03/1957
04/05/2006
10/12/2011
5 years, 7 months and 7 days
1 level of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
2,300
65855/13
10/10/2013
Yevgen Olegovych LICHKOV
11/12/1971
Viktor Borysovych Vasylyuk
Kyiv
28/09/2004
11/01/2015
10 years, 3 months and 15 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
3,900
22735/16
14/04/2016
Yevgeniy Igorevych KHAYKIN
17/09/1958
Dmytro Viktorovych Yagunov
Kyiv
09/02/2013
29/03/2016
3 years,1 month and 21 days
1 level of jurisdiction
900
22736/16
14/04/2016
Igor Dmytrovych TREMBOVETSKYY
05/12/1963
Dmytro Viktorovych Yagunov
Kyiv
09/02/2013
29/03/2016
3 years, 1 month and 21 days
1 level of jurisdiction
900[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.