CASE OF P.S. AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 16677/16;8582/22;17692/22;20914/22;34299/22;53765/22;7447/23 • ECHR ID: 001-229411
Document date: December 14, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF P.S. AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 16677/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of P.S. and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
MÄrtiņš Mits , President , KateÅ™ina Å imáÄková, Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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. 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 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina MÄrtiņš Mits Acting Deputy Section 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
per applicant
(in euros) [1]
16677/16
16/03/2016
P.S.
1979
07/10/2015
pending
More than 8 years and 27 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,100
8582/22
02/02/2022
Orest Orestovych TANASIYCHUK
1974
10/03/2016
07/05/2020
19/08/2020
24/12/2019
04/06/2020
pending
(in April 2023 the applicant was put on a wanted persons’ list as he had fled the country)
More than 7 years and 29 days
1 level of jurisdiction
1,700
17692/22
10/03/2022
Oleg Anatoliyovych DANYLYUK
1971
Ogorilko Yuriy Volodymyrovych
Chervonograd Lviv region
24/03/2017
11/05/2023
6 years and
1 month and
18 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
20914/22
25/03/2022
Maksym Sergiyovych MYEDVYEDYEV
1988
13/02/2015
09/11/2021
6 years and
8 months and
28 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
34299/22
22/06/2022
Sergiy Oleksiyovych MAKOVEY
1964
21/04/2009
23/02/2022
12 years and
10 months and
3 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4,200
53765/22
27/10/2022
Leonid Leonidovych KOTSENKO
1980
30/11/2015
pending
More than 7 years and 11 months and 4 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,100
7447/23
27/01/2023
Iryna Mykolayivna MAZURYK
1965
Korzun Dmytro Leonidovych
Kyiv
15/06/2015
13/09/2022
(notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 29/09/2022)
7 years and
3 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.