Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Paraskun and Others v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (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. The violations stemmed from the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies for addressing such delays. The Court joined eleven similar applications, finding a systemic issue. It also addressed the issue of standing for a deceased applicant, allowing his son to continue the application. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the length of civil proceedings.
* **Facts:** It references a list of applicants and details of their applications, which are outlined in an appended table.
* **Law:**
* The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It addressed the legal standing (locus standi) of Mr. Andriy Volodymyrovych Filippov to continue his deceased father’s application, establishing his legitimate interest in pursuing the case.
* The Court examined the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, reiterating the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings.
* It referred to a previous leading case, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, which dealt with similar issues.
* The Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the applicants lacked effective remedies, thus violating Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.
* Under Article 41, the Court awarded specific sums to the applicants as compensation, as detailed in the appended table.
* **Decision:** The Court formally declared the violations and outlined the compensation to be paid by Ukraine, including interest on delayed payments.
* **Appendix:** A table lists the applicants, details of their cases (dates, length of proceedings, etc.), and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The decision confirms that excessively long civil proceedings without justification constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
* **Violation of Article 13:** The decision underscores the importance of having effective remedies available at the national level to address complaints about the length of proceedings.
* **Locus Standi:** The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a next of kin can pursue an application on behalf of a deceased applicant.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving lengthy proceedings in Ukraine.
* **Systemic Issue:** The joinder of multiple applications indicates a systemic problem within the Ukrainian legal system regarding the length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights ongoing issues within its judicial system, particularly concerning the length of legal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies for those affected. This ruling may have implications for other similar cases involving Ukrainian applicants.
