CASE OF SHAPOSHNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 15153/19;39617/21;57888/21;6818/22;44346/22 • ECHR ID: 001-227744
Document date: October 5, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SHAPOSHNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 15153/19 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shaposhnikov 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 14 September 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 civil 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 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.
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 case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, no. 23853/02, 30 November 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 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, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers 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 5 October 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 civil 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 non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros) [1]
15153/19
11/03/2019
Mykhaylo Vitaliyovych SHAPOSHNIKOV
1976Popeskul Oleksiy Fedorovych
Odesa
08/12/2015
11/06/2021
11/12/2019
pending
More than 6 years and 1 month and 4 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
800
39617/21
27/07/2021
Grygoriy Viktorovych BAYRAK
1987Pogibko Oleksandr Olegovych
Odesa
31/10/2018
19/05/2022
3 years and 6 months and 20 days
1 level of jurisdiction
1,200
57888/21
04/11/2021
Nazar Yaroslavovych POMIRKO
1985Dmytrenko Volodymyr Pavlovych
Lviv
08/09/2014
14/07/2021
6 years and 10 months and 7 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
6818/22
17/01/2022
Valeriy Yuriyovych ZAKHARENKO
1967Dovbyshev Dmytro Oleksandrovych
Odesa
10/12/2013
13/07/2021
7 years and 7 months and 4 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
44346/22
29/08/2022
Nataliya Ivanivna TULIKA
1946
23/07/2018
pending
More than 4 years and 11 months and 18 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.