CASE OF VYETOKHA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 14198/21;46974/21;49487/21;54352/21;55427/21;57461/21 • ECHR ID: 001-225041
Document date: June 8, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VYETOKHA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 14198/21 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vyetokha and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, MarÃa Elósegui , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2023,
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 Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Governmentâ€) were given notice of the applications.
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.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The applicants complained 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.
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 Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021 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 justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
12. 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.â€
13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(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 8 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni 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
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros) [1]
14198/21
02/03/2021
Gennadiy
Yuriyovych VYETOKHA
1948
09/08/2013
03/09/2020
7 years and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction
900
46974/21
15/09/2021
Anatoliy
Dmytrovych VAKULENKO
1947Petrolyuk
Andriy Mykolayovych
Lviv
11/09/2000
pending
More than 22 years and 7 months and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
7,200
49487/21
28/09/2021
Lengard
Rudolfovych
BEKK
1956Mytsyk
Oleg Volodymyrovych
Lviv
25/09/2009
pending
More than 13 years and 7 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,800
54352/21
29/10/2021
Oleksandr Anatoliyovych SLUTSKYY
1967Makhmutov
Oleg
Arturovych
Mykolayiv
28/09/2016
pending
More than 6 years and 6 months and 28 days
1 level of jurisdiction
1,700
55427/21
02/11/2021
Oleg
Petrovych NASTAVSKYY
1959Yukhymenko Ruslana
Ivanivna
Lviv
21/08/2013
pending
More than 9 years and 8 months and 4 days
1 level of jurisdiction
2,900
57461/21
16/11/2021
Volodymyr Yosypovych
TSALKO
1964
09/08/2017
pending
More than 5 years and 8 months and 16 days
1 level of jurisdiction
1,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.