FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ANTIMONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 54734/12 and 12 other applications -
see appended table)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 November 2015

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Antimonova and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Angelika Nußberger, President,
	Ganna Yudkivska,
	Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2015,
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 applications were communicated to the Government (“the Government”).
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
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
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, which, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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 cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004; Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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 by which to submit their length-of-proceedings complaints.
11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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.”
13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into Russian roubles for application no. 35302/14 and to Ukrainian hryvnias for remaining applications 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 November 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Karen Reid	Angelika Nußberger
	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 Name
Date of birth /
Nationality	Representative name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length
Levels of jurisdiction	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant / household
(in euros)	
1.		54734/12
13/08/2012	Nadezhda Leontyevna ANTIMONOVA
15/11/1983
	
	01/07/2006
	pending
	9 year(s) and 1 month(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,600	
2.		54672/13
15/08/2013	Sergiy Volenovych ARTEMENKO
29/08/1963
	Tselovalnichenko Nataliya Yevgenivna
Кyiv	25/11/2005
	20/02/2013
	7 year(s) and 3 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	900	
3.		68941/13
26/10/2013	Mariya Volodymyrivna MURAVSKA
16/11/1949
	Pavlyshyn Yuriy Mykolayovych
Odesa	14/08/2006
	15/05/2013
	6 year(s) and 9 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	900	
4.		72862/13
15/11/2013	Ganna Vitaliyivna KRYUCHKOVA
07/02/1973
	
	17/10/2006

16/08/2011
	04/08/2010

08/08/2013
	3 year(s) and 10 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction

2 year(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	500	
5.		76691/13
22/11/2013	Larysa Ivanivna TKACHENKO
17/09/1976
	
	13/07/2001
	15/11/2013
	12 year(s) and 4 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	2,500	
6.		2633/14
10/12/2013	Yelena Timofeyevna KHIMENKO
30/03/1946
	
	27/03/2008
	23/01/2014
	5 year(s) and 10 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	500	
7.		5780/14
24/02/2014	Kateryna Anatoliyivna MYRONENKO
07/04/1966
	
	01/12/2006
	24/10/2013
	6 year(s) and 11 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	900	
8.		7902/14
18/09/2013	Oleg Borysovych TYKHENKO
29/01/1957
	
	16/01/2007
	27/03/2013
	6 year(s) and 2 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	600	
9.		13914/14
03/02/2014	Svitlana Yevgenivna LUNYEVA
21/11/1956
	
	08/10/2008
	17/09/2014
	5 year(s) and 11 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	500	
10.		35302/14
26/03/2014	Arnold Adilbekovich TADEYEV
31/08/1938
	
	26/04/1999
	10/12/2013
	14 year(s) and 7 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,800	
11.		36916/14
07/04/2014	Anatoliy Volodymyrovych NESTERYUK
22/04/1953
	
	10/12/2007
	23/01/2014
	6 year(s) and 1 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	300	
12.		37394/14
03/05/2014	Emil Orestovych PAVLYUK
27/02/1962
	
	10/11/2006
	24/10/2013
	6 year(s) and 11 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	900	
13.		52049/14
14/07/2014	Svitlana Oleksandrivna KORDIYAKA
18/01/1971
	
	24/09/2004

05/02/2013
	19/01/2011

24/12/2013
	6 year(s) and 4 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction

0 year(s) and 11 month(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction	900