CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 42664/21;49639/21;56948/21;907/22;1909/22;6592/22;10526/22;11498/22;16627/22;28859/22;31377/22 • ECHR ID: 001-225895
Document date: July 20, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 42664/21 and 10 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 July 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bondarenko 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 29 June 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. In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 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.
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. In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
13. The Court has examined this complaint 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, it either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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.
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.â€
15. 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 20 July 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]
42664/21
16/08/2021
Viktor Igorovych BONDARENKO
1987Yama Dmytro Mykolayovych
Zaporizhhzya
21/12/2013
18/03/2021
7 years and 2 months and 26 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
49639/21
29/09/2021
Olena Borysivna KOZLOVETS
1960Makhmutov Oleg Arturovych
Mykolayiv
19/06/2018
14/12/2021
3 years and 5 months and 26 days
1 level of jurisdiction
900
56948/21
10/11/2021
Sergiy Viktorovych KANDRASHYN
1963Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
06/11/2012
13/12/2022
10 years and 1 month and 8 days 1 level of jurisdiction
5,500
907/22
18/12/2021
Vitaliy Andriyovych MIROSHNYCHENKO
1988Bondarenko Oleg Grygorovych
Dniprio
17/08/2012
30/09/2022
10 years and 1 month and 14 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
2,400
1909/22
29/12/2021
Andriy Gennadiyovych KRUPODER
1977Shapoval Olena Viktorivna
Kyiv
25/08/2015
pending
More than 7 years and 9 months and 15 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,000
6592/22
24/01/2022
Sergiy Sergiyovych OLIYNYK
1982Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich
Lysychansk
16/07/2018
27/09/2021
3 years and 2 months and 12 days 1 level of jurisdiction
900
10526/22
24/01/2022
Yevgeniya Volodymyrivna OLIYNYK
1993Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich
Lysychansk
27/06/2018
18/08/2021
3 years and 1 months and 23 days 1 level of jurisdiction
900
11498/22
16/02/2022
Vladyslav Mykolayovych MOROZOV
1976
12/11/2010
17/08/2021
10 years and 9 months and 6 days 1 level of jurisdiction
4,800
16627/22
23/02/2022
Mykola Sergiyovych YURCHENKO
1984Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
15/05/2014
pending
More than 9 years and 25 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,600
28859/22
16/05/2022
Volodymyr Mykhaylovych POGORILYAK
1959Bukhtoyarova alias Andreykovych Oksana Vasylivna
Uzhgorod
04/04/2014
pending
More than 9 years and 2 months and 5 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,400
31377/22
02/06/2022
Viktor Petrovych KYTSYUK
1981Podosinov Andriy Oleksandrovych
Kyiv
22/12/2014
03/02/2022
7 years and 1 month and 13 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.