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
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 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.
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
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 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.
12. 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.
14. 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;
(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
More than 7 year(s) and 13 day(s)
2,400
13548/23
18/03/2023
Lesya Volodymyrivna ANDRUSHKO
1964
06/03/2017
13/03/2023
6 year(s) and 8 day(s)
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)
3,000
33449/23
29/08/2023
Oleksandr Yevgeniyovych TRUBAKOV
1965
Trubakov Yevgen Oleksandrovych
Kyiv
12/07/2017
More than 7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 day(s)
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)
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)
900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
