Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of *Vovk and Others v. Ukraine*:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that Ukraine violated 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 in the cases of the applicants. The core issue was the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants and the lack of effective domestic remedies to address this. The Court found that the length of the proceedings was not justified and that the applicants did not have access to remedies that could have expedited the process or provided compensation for the delays. As a result, the Court awarded compensation to most of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, except for one applicant who renounced any compensation.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were joined due to their similar subject matter.
* **Facts:** The facts section briefly outlines that the applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It references the Court’s established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
* The Court refers to a previous leading case, *Nechay v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues.
* The Court concludes that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that no effective remedy was available to the applicants.
* **Application of Article 41:** This section deals with just satisfaction. It notes that one applicant waived compensation and then outlines the amounts awarded to the other applicants.
* **Decision:** The Court formally declares the applications admissible, holds that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicants as compensation.
* **Appendix:** A table lists the applications, including dates, applicant details, length of proceedings, and amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Confirmation of Violation:** The judgment confirms that excessively long criminal proceedings without effective domestic remedies constitute a violation of the Convention.
* **Reference to *Nechay v. Ukraine*:** The reference to the *Nechay* case indicates a consistent line of jurisprudence regarding similar issues in Ukraine.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for assessing potential compensation in similar cases.
* **Criteria for Assessing Length of Proceedings:** The judgment reiterates the key criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, which are essential for evaluating potential violations of Article 6 § 1.
* **Appendix Details:** The appendix provides specific details about the length of proceedings and compensation awarded in each case, which can be useful for comparative analysis.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights systemic issues within its judicial system regarding the length of criminal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies. This judgment will likely be important for Ukrainians who are facing similar issues.
