Background
The European Court of Human Rights jointly examined four applications against Ukraine concerning the duration of civil proceedings. The proceedings involving Gennadiy Korzhevskyy lasted approximately eight years and six months across three levels of jurisdiction, while those involving Igor Bilous lasted approximately ten years and three months across three levels.
The proceedings involving Sergiy Baksheyev and Nastasiya Sikachyna remained pending at one level of jurisdiction after more than three years and eight months and more than four years and three months, respectively. All four applicants alleged that the proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” required by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that Ukrainian law afforded no effective remedy, contrary to Article 13.
The Court’s Holding
The Court declared the applications admissible and unanimously found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. Applying the established criteria of case complexity, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake, it found no fact or argument capable of justifying the proceedings’ overall duration. The delays therefore failed to satisfy the Convention’s reasonable-time requirement.
The Court also found that the applicants had no effective remedy for their complaints. It awarded Bilous €2,400 and awarded Korzhevskyy, Baksheyev, and Sikachyna €1,200 each in non-pecuniary damages, plus any chargeable tax. Ukraine must pay within three months; thereafter, simple interest accrues at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
Key Takeaways
- Civil proceedings lasting from more than three years and eight months to approximately ten years and three months were unjustified in the circumstances presented.
- The absence of an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ delay complaints separately breached Article 13.
- The Court joined the four applications because they raised the same issues under Articles 6 § 1 and 13.
Why It Matters
The judgment confirms that the reasonableness of civil-proceeding delays depends on the case’s complexity, the parties’ and authorities’ conduct, and the interests at stake. Here, the material before the Court supplied no justification for the overall duration of either the completed or still-pending proceedings.
It also underscores that an excessive-delay claim may support findings under both Article 6 § 1, concerning adjudication within a reasonable time, and Article 13, concerning the availability of an effective domestic remedy.