CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF KUSHTYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, 6 octobre 2022, 15984/21, 19426/21, 22511/21

En anglais
Mots clés

Synthèse

  • Juridiction : CEDH
  • Numéro de pourvoi :
    15984/21, 19426/21, 22511/21
  • Dispositif : Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable)
  • Importance : Faible
  • État défendeur : Ukraine
  • Nature : Arrêt
  • Identifiant européen :
    ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1006JUD001598421
  • Liens HUDOC :
  • Avocat(s) : ATAMANCHUK V.I., MYTSYK O.V.
Voir plus

Résumé

Vous devez être connecté pour pouvoir générer un résumé. Découvrir gratuitement Pappers Justice +

Suggestions de l'IA

Texte intégral

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KUSHTYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 15984/21 and 2 others - see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 October 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kushtyev and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 March 2022, 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.

THE LAW

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. 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 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. 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 further 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal 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 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov Acting Deputy 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 damage per applicant (in euros)[1] 15984/21 11/03/2021 Pavlo Georgiyovych KUSHTYEV 1995 Atamanchuk Valentyn Ivanovych Odesa 18/09/2015 pending More than 6 years and 4 months and 24 days 1 level of jurisdiction 1,800 19426/21 26/03/2021 Anton Sergiyovych TUMAKOV 1980 15/07/2011 pending More than 10 years and 6 months and 27 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 3,600 22511/21 16/04/2021 Bogdan Bogdanovych DRACH 1982 Mytsyk Oleg Volodymyrovych Lviv 06/09/2010 27/10/2020 10 years and 1 month and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 3,000 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Note...

Décisions d'espèce similaires

CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF BABKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, 30 novembre 2023, 36496/21, 36503/21, 36505/21, 50949/21, 60395/21, …
Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant) (Volet matériel);Violation de l'article 13+3 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant;Interdiction de la torture);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-3 - Durée de la détention provisoire);Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-4 - Garanties procédurales du contrôle)
CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF SHPYTALNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, 5 septembre 2024, 52921/21, 10054/23, 16522/23, 27249/23, 37538/23, …
Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation-{général} (Article 2 al. 1 du Protocole n° 4 - Liberté de circulation)
CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF SMETANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, 20 juin 2024, 32734/19, 2384/21, 1342/23, 15200/23
Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable)
CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF BUYLUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE, 28 mars 2024, 55250/16, 48907/22, 2292/23
Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure pénale;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1 - Arrestation ou détention régulières;Article 5-1-c - Infraction pénale);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-3 - Durée de la détention provisoire);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-5 - Réparation)
CEDH, Cour (Cinquième Section Comité), CASE OF SLYVYNSKYY AND CHUBAR v. UKRAINE, 28 mars 2024, 47711/22, 7365/23
Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13+6-1 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Droit à un procès équitable;Article 6-1 - Délai raisonnable)