Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF ZHOLONKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 18371/17;1533/18;16154/18;19938/18 • ECHR ID: 001-231094

Document date: February 22, 2024

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 1

CASE OF ZHOLONKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 18371/17;1533/18;16154/18;19938/18 • ECHR ID: 001-231094

Document date: February 22, 2024

Cited paragraphs only

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ZHOLONKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 18371/17 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 February 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision .

In the case of Zholonko and Others v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Mārtiņš Mits , President , Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2024,

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 applicants were represented by Mr Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych, a lawyer practising in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.

3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

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. 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;

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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš Mits

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

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

18371/17

22/02/2017

Sergiy Pylypovych ZHOLONKO

1966

21/11/2014

16/09/2021

6 years and

9 months and

27 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

900

1533/18

29/12/2017

Sergiy Yakovych KRAMARCHUK

1972

18/03/2015

22/06/2021

6 years and

3 months and 5 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

1,500

16154/18

20/03/2018

Volodymyr Mykolayovych KOBERNYUK

1963

17/11/2014

22/04/2021

6 years and

5 months and 6 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

500

19938/18

10/04/2018

Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych KHYLYA

1965

04/11/2014

12/11/2020

6 years and

9 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

500

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255