Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Khryapa v. Ukraine:
1. The Essence of the Decision:
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the excessive length of civil proceedings involving Mr. Khryapa and the lack of an effective domestic remedy for this issue. The court determined that the duration of over eight years for the proceedings was unreasonable, referencing its established case-law on similar matters. As a result, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant 1,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. Structure and Main Provisions:
* **Procedure:** This section outlines the case’s origin, noting that the application was lodged in 2017 and that the applicant was represented by a lawyer. It also mentions that the Ukrainian Government was notified of the application.
* **The Facts:** This section refers to an appended table containing the applicant’s details and information relevant to the application.
* **The Law:** This is the core of the decision, detailing the alleged violations and the Court’s reasoning:
* The applicant claimed a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 due to the unreasonable length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.
* The Court referred to its established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of proceedings’ length, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and what was at stake for the applicant.
* The Court cited a previous similar case against Ukraine, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, where a violation was found.
* The Court concluded that the length of the proceedings in Mr. Khryapa’s case was excessive and that he did not have an effective remedy available to him.
* The Court declared the complaints admissible and found a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section addresses just satisfaction. The Court, referring to its previous case-law, found it reasonable to award the applicant the sum indicated in the appended table (1,200 euros).
* **Operative Provisions:** The Court:
* Declared the application admissible.
* Held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Ordered Ukraine to pay the applicant 1,200 euros within three months, with interest accruing in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** This table provides a summary of the case, including the applicant’s details, the duration of the proceedings, and the amount awarded.
3. Main Provisions for Use:
* **Finding of Violation:** The key takeaway is the Court’s finding that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
* **Reasonable Time:** The decision reinforces the importance of the “reasonable time” requirement in civil proceedings and highlights that a delay of over eight years is likely to be considered excessive.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision underscores the obligation of states to provide effective remedies for complaints about the length of proceedings.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The award of 1,200 euros for non-pecuniary damage provides a benchmark for similar cases.
* **Reference to Previous Case-Law:** The Court’s reliance on Karnaushenko v. Ukraine demonstrates the consistency of its approach to cases involving similar issues in Ukraine.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues with the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies within the Ukrainian legal system. This is particularly relevant for Ukrainians involved in legal proceedings and for those seeking to understand their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
