This is an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of *Lyzogub and Kravchenko v. Ukraine*.
1. **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. The Court concluded that the length of the civil proceedings in both applicants’ cases was excessive and that they did not have an effective remedy available to them in Ukraine to complain about the length of these proceedings. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums of money for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the two applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** The Court assessed the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings based on its established criteria, including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. Referencing a previous leading case against Ukraine (*Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*), the Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and no effective remedy was available.
* **Application of Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Ukraine to pay EUR 4,800 to Mr. Lyzogub and EUR 2,400 to Mr. Kravchenko for non-pecuniary damage, plus any applicable taxes. It also stipulated that interest would accrue on these amounts in case of late payment.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a table with details of each application, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, dates and length of the proceedings, levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The judgment reinforces the principle that states must ensure civil proceedings are conducted within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* It highlights the importance of Article 13, requiring states to provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights, including the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
* The specific amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage may serve as a reference point in similar cases concerning lengthy proceedings in Ukraine.
* **** The judgment may have implications for Ukraine, requiring it to improve the efficiency of its judicial system and provide effective remedies for individuals whose rights under Article 6 § 1 have been violated.
