[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SHYLO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 41135/08 (Judgment : Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of ...) [2017] ECHR 578 (22 June 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/578.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:0622JUD004113508, [2017] ECHR 578, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0622JUD004113508

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SHYLO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

 

(Application no. 41135/08 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 June 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Shylo and Others v. Ukraine,

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

          Nona Tsotsoria, President,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
          Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2017,

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 Ukrainian 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 criminal 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 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, which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, 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, 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 Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004, 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 as to 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 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.

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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds 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 these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;

 

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 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 22 June 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

          Karen Reid                                                                   Nona Tsotsoria
            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 name Date of birth	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 (in euros)[1]
1.	41135/08 11/08/2008	Leonid Volodymyrovych Shylo 11/05/1981	Roman Yuryevich Martynovskiy Kyiv	22/08/2004	05/10/2010	6 years, 1 month and 14 days 2 levels of jurisdiction	1,500
2.	70569/11 31/10/2011	Maksim Aleksandrovich Zavyalov 01/01/1980	Andrey Andreyevich Ivashchenko Pokrovsk	27/01/2005     15/02/2008	23/11/2016     23/11/2016	11 years, 9 months and 28 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   8 years, 9 months and 9 days 2 levels of jurisdiction	4,200
3.	38729/13 31/05/2013	Aleksandr Anatolyevich Opanasenko 25/03/1973		14/03/2006	10/04/2014	8 years and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
4.	44239/14 05/06/2014	Natalya Mikhaylovna Koren 26/06/1976	Olena Mykolayivna Ashchenko Kharkiv	08/06/2010	pending	More than 7 years 2 levels of jurisdiction	1,800
5.	69911/14 23/10/2014	Svetlana Nikolayevna Krupko 15/09/1974	Olena Mykolayivna Ashchenko Kharkiv	08/06/2010	pending	More than 7 years 2 levels of jurisdiction	1,800
6.	34595/16 09/06/2016	Volodymyr Anatoliyovych Kuchay 24/03/1958		15/06/2005	04/02/2016	10 years, 7 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction	3,000
7.	41826/16 09/07/2016	Konstantin Mikhaylovich Gubenko 11/04/1976		07/03/2007	27/04/2017	10 years, 1 month and 21 days 1 level of jurisdiction	2,900

 




---

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