CASE OF KOPTYELOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOPTYELOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 30406/17 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 January 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Koptyelov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Sârcu, President,  Kateřina Šimáčková,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 December 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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) 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. In application no. 11163/22, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 11163/22, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 13.  The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  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, Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of application no. 11163/22 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;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 23 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu  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]    30406/17 13/04/2017 Pavlo Olegovych KOPTYELOV 1972 Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 12/12/2014 pending More than 9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 4,200    11163/22 14/02/2022 Sergiy Oleksiyovych MOGYLEVSKYY 1959   06/05/2015 18/01/2021 The applicant only received the final decision of the Supreme Court on 25/08/2021, (the claim supported by a copy of the envelope) 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500    28853/22 18/05/2022 Oleg Oleksandrovych POTUPA 1985   22/11/2017 pending More than 7 year(s) and 13 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400    13548/23 18/03/2023 Lesya Volodymyrivna ANDRUSHKO 1964   06/03/2017 13/03/2023 6 year(s) and 8 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 300    13578/23 04/03/2023 Andriy Olersandrovych BANTSER 1971   11/07/2011 22/09/2022 (received by the applicant on 04/11/2022) 11 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,000    33449/23 29/08/2023 Oleksandr Yevgeniyovych TRUBAKOV 1965 Trubakov Yevgen Oleksandrovych Kyiv 12/07/2017 pending More than 7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400    4629/24 31/01/2024 Yuriy Volodymyrovych LESECHKO 1970 Reynish Leonid Valeriyovych Kotsyubynske 05/03/2015 09/10/2023 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,300    9945/24 08/03/2024 Karina Ivanivna BORYSOVA 1991   28/09/2016 01/11/2023 The final decision was made public several days later and only served then on the applicant in the end of November 2023 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.