CASE OF GORDYNA v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case of Gordyna v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the unlawful detention of the applicant, Mr. Vitaliy Mykolayovych Gordyna. The Court determined that his detention between March 7, 2022, and March 14, 2022, lacked a legal basis and involved unacknowledged deprivation of liberty or delays in drawing up an arrest report. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the lack of an effective right to compensation for the violation of Article 5 § 3. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Gordyna 2,700 euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The case originated from an application lodged against Ukraine on March 18, 2024.
* **Facts:** The applicant complained of unlawful detention and raised other complaints under the Convention.
* **Law:** The Court focused on Article 5 § 1 regarding the right to liberty and security, emphasizing that any deprivation of liberty must comply with national law and protect against arbitrariness.
* **Findings:** The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1, noting that the applicant’s detention was not in accordance with the Convention. It also identified violations related to the length of pre-trial detention and the lack of compensation for these violations, referencing established case-law.
* **Article 41:** The Court awarded compensation of 2,700 euros for damages and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5 § 1):** The decision underscores that detention must have a clear legal basis and adhere to procedural rules to prevent arbitrariness. The Court highlighted specific defects in Mr. Gordyna’s detention, such as the lack of legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision and the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty.
* **Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention (Article 5 § 3):** The Court found that the pre-trial detention was excessively long and that the authorities failed to adequately assess the applicant’s personal situation, consider alternative measures of restraint, and conduct the proceedings with due diligence.
* **Right to Compensation (Article 5 § 5):** The decision points out the absence of an effective right to compensation in the domestic legal system for violations of Article 5 § 3, reinforcing the need for accessible and adequate remedies for individuals whose rights have been violated.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it highlights systemic issues related to unlawful detention, excessive pre-trial detention, and the lack of effective remedies for these violations. It serves as a reminder of the need for reforms in the criminal justice system to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Grigoryan v. Armenia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate medical care and poor detention conditions experienced by the applicant, Sergey Grigoryan, who suffered from diabetes and a heart condition. The Court determined that Mr. Grigoryan did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care while in detention, which was exacerbated by restricted access to sanitary facilities. The Court highlighted shortcomings such as lacking or delayed drug therapy, lack of or delay in medical testing, failure to or delay in transfer to a specialized medical facility, lack of or delay in consultation by a specialist, and lack of requisite assistance in the administration of medication and other routine medical procedures. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Grigoryan 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 4,350 euros for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The case originated from an application lodged against Armenia on April 11, 2023, and notice was given to the Armenian Government.
* **Facts:** The applicant’s details and relevant information are outlined in an appended table, focusing on his complaints about inadequate medical care and detention conditions.
* **Law:** The Court examined the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** The Court assessed whether the applicant received adequate medical treatment and if the detention conditions were compatible with his health. It reiterated that authorities must ensure prompt and accurate diagnosis and care, regular and systematic supervision, and a comprehensive therapeutic strategy.
* **Findings:** The Court identified shortcomings in the applicant’s medical treatment and noted that his situation was exacerbated by restricted access to sanitary facilities. It concluded that the applicant did not receive comprehensive and adequate medical care while in detention, constituting a breach of Article 3.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 4,350 euros for costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Adequacy of Medical Assistance:** The decision reinforces the principle that authorities must provide prompt and accurate medical care to detainees, with regular supervision and a comprehensive therapeutic strategy.
* **Detention Conditions:** The decision highlights that detention conditions must be compatible with a detainee’s health, including adequate access to sanitary facilities and assistance with medical needs.
* **Comparable Treatment:** Medical treatment within prison facilities must be appropriate and comparable to the quality of treatment provided to the general population.
* **Violation of Article 3:** The Court found that the cumulative effect of inadequate medical care and poor detention conditions constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
This decision underscores the importance of providing adequate medical care and humane detention conditions for individuals with health issues, setting a precedent for similar cases in Armenia and other member states of the Council of Europe.
CASE OF HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
Here’s a breakdown of the Harutyunyan v. Armenia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention on Human Rights due to an unfair trial. The core issue was the applicant’s inability to examine a key witness whose testimony significantly contributed to his conviction. The witness’s statements, made during the investigation, were heavily relied upon by the courts, but the applicant was never given an opportunity to cross-examine him at any stage of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the lack of opportunity to challenge the witness’s testimony, coupled with the absence of any compensatory measures by the national judicial authorities, undermined the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,400 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the application was lodged in 2014 and communicated to the Armenian Government.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the relevant facts, focusing on the applicant’s complaint of an unfair trial due to the inability to examine a key witness.
* **Law:** The judgment then addresses the alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention, referencing established case law, particularly Schatschaschwili v. Germany, which sets out the general principles for cases involving absent prosecution witnesses.
* **Application of Article 41:** Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and awards the applicant compensation based on the Court’s case-law.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* The core provision is the finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) due to the lack of opportunity to examine a key witness.
* The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, especially when their testimony is crucial for securing a conviction.
* It highlights that the absence of such an opportunity weighs heavily against the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings.
* The decision also underscores the need for national judicial authorities to implement counterbalancing measures when a witness’s untested statements are admitted as evidence.
This decision reinforces the fundamental right to a fair trial, particularly the right to examine witnesses, and serves as a reminder to states of their obligation to ensure that defendants have a genuine opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.
CASE OF KASZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Kasza and Others v. Hungary, concerning a complaint about the excessive length of civil (liquidation) proceedings. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The Court found that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive, violating the applicants’ rights under the Convention. The ECHR referenced its previous case-law on similar issues in Hungary, particularly the cases of Gazsó v. Hungary and Csatári and Others v. Hungary. As a result, the Court declared the application admissible and awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The decision is structured as follows: it begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the application and the representation of the parties. It then presents the facts of the case, specifically the applicants’ complaint regarding the length of the liquidation proceedings. The decision proceeds to the legal analysis, referencing Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the Court’s established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. It refers to previous similar cases against Hungary where violations were found. Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicants. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to declare the application admissible, hold that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1, and order the respondent State to pay the specified amounts to the applicants.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the ECHR’s stance on the excessive length of judicial proceedings, particularly in the context of liquidation proceedings in Hungary. The Court explicitly stated that it found no justification for the overall length of the proceedings at the national level and that the length of the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This decision serves as a reminder to Hungary of its obligation to ensure the efficiency of its judicial system and to avoid prolonged delays in civil proceedings. The amounts awarded to the applicants, while relatively modest, serve as a form of redress for the violation they experienced.
CASE OF KIRYEYEV AND LIMAN v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Kiryeyev and Liman v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including access to a court. The Court found that both applicants, Kiryeyev and Liman, were denied access to higher courts due to an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules by Ukrainian courts. This effectively impaired their right to have their cases reviewed by a higher judicial instance. The Court emphasized that while states are not obligated to establish appellate courts, if they do, the guarantees of Article 6 must be respected.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** It briefly refers to the appended table for details about the applicants and their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It reiterates the principles of Article 6 § 1, emphasizing that the right of access to a court is not absolute but limitations must not impair the very essence of that right. It references previous case law, including *Golder v. the United Kingdom* and *Mushta v. Ukraine*, where similar violations were found.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed additional complaints by Kiryeyev but found it unnecessary to examine them separately, as the main legal issue had already been addressed.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded compensation to Liman but not to Kiryeyev, as he did not submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with the Rules of Court.
* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
* Joined the applications.
* Declared the complaints regarding denial of access to higher courts admissible.
* Found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* Awarded compensation to Liman.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of application, specific irregularities complained of, relevant case law, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Access to Courts:** The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that procedural rules do not become insurmountable barriers that prevent individuals from having their cases heard by higher courts.
* **Formalistic Application of Rules:** The judgment highlights that an excessively formalistic application of procedural rules can violate Article 6 § 1, particularly when it leads to the denial of access to appellate courts.
* **Consistency with Previous Case Law:** The Court’s reliance on previous cases like *Kreuz v. Poland* and *Mushta v. Ukraine* reinforces the established principle that limitations on access to courts must be carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not undermine the essence of the right to a fair trial.
* **Compensation:** The decision to award compensation to one applicant and not the other illustrates the importance of adhering to procedural rules for claiming just satisfaction.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine as it highlights the need for Ukrainian courts to apply procedural rules in a way that respects the right of access to justice, particularly in appellate proceedings. It serves as a reminder that overly strict or formalistic interpretations of procedural requirements can lead to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
CASE OF KORZHEVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Korzhevskyy and Others v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (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 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicants complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective remedies to address this issue. The Court decided to join the applications, declared some admissible and others inadmissible, and ultimately ruled that the length of the proceedings was excessive, breaching the Convention. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention and that the Ukrainian Government was notified.
* **Facts:** It references an appended table for the list of applicants and relevant details of their applications.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment. It discusses the applicants’ complaints regarding the length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies. The Court refers to its established case-law, particularly Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, to support its findings.
* The Court dismissed part of one application (no. 25321/24) concerning Ms. Korzhevska, finding she lacked victim status in one set of proceedings.
* The Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the applicants did not have effective remedies at their disposal.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addressed the issue of compensation, awarding specific amounts to the applicants as indicated in the appended table.
* **Decision:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, declare certain complaints admissible, find a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, and order the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of applications, including dates, applicant names, details of the proceedings, length of proceedings, levels of jurisdiction, and amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** The core finding is the violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and the right to an effective remedy. This is crucial for understanding the judgment’s impact.
* **Reasonable Time Assessment:** The Court reiterates the 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.
* **Compensation:** The judgment specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicants, providing a tangible outcome of the case.
* **Appendix Details:** The appended table offers detailed information about each application, including the length of proceedings and the amounts awarded, which can be useful for comparative analysis.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine. This decision highlights the systemic issue of excessively long civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine, which is a recurring problem addressed by the ECtHR.
CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Kovalenko and Others v. Ukraine*, concerning complaints from numerous applicants serving life sentences in Ukraine. The applicants argued that their life sentences lacked a realistic prospect of release, violating Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The ECHR found a violation of Article 3 for the period between each applicant’s final sentencing to life imprisonment and March 3, 2023. This date marks when a new parole mechanism in Ukraine became fully operational, offering a realistic opportunity for review of life sentences. However, the Court found no violation of Article 3 for the period after March 3, 2023, acknowledging the positive change in Ukrainian law. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of applications, alleged violation of Article 3, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The decision refers to previous leading cases, *Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2)* and *Medvid v. Ukraine*, which established similar violations and clarified the timeline of the issue. The key change from previous rulings is the recognition that the situation of uncertainty regarding the prospect of release for life prisoners in Ukraine was resolved on March 3, 2023, with the implementation of a new parole mechanism.
**:** The most important provision of this decision is the establishment of a clear timeline for the violation of Article 3. The ECHR explicitly states that Ukraine was in violation from the date of the final life sentence until March 3, 2023. This date is critical because it acknowledges the positive impact of the new parole mechanism in Ukraine, offering a clear and realistic prospect of release for life prisoners. This decision provides legal clarity for both the Ukrainian government and individuals serving life sentences, setting a precedent for future cases and potentially influencing penal reform in Ukraine.
CASE OF KOVALEVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
****
This decision concerns three applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions, as well as other violations under the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the applicants were held in poor conditions, including overcrowding, lack of hygiene, and inadequate access to basic necessities. The Court also noted the absence of effective domestic remedies to address these issues. Consequently, the ECtHR ruled that Ukraine had violated Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment and guarantee the right to an effective remedy, respectively. Additionally, the Court found violations related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies for this issue, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to each applicant.
The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Ukrainian Government. The facts section details the applicants and their complaints, focusing on inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies. The law section addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. It then assesses the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13, referencing established case-law on detention conditions and the standard of proof required from the government. The decision also considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law, declaring them admissible and finding further breaches of the Convention. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment.
The most important provisions of this decision are those that highlight the systemic issues within Ukrainian detention facilities and the judiciary. The Court emphasizes the need for effective remedies for poor detention conditions and excessive length of criminal proceedings. The decision also underscores the importance of providing reliable evidence, such as dated cell floor plans and inmate numbers, to counter allegations of ill-treatment. Furthermore, the awards granted to the applicants serve as a tangible acknowledgment of the harm suffered and a call for Ukraine to improve its detention conditions and judicial processes.
CASE OF PIDDUBNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Piddubnyy and Others v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of pre-trial detention of the applicants. The Court also identified violations related to inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies for these issues, as well as the absence of adequate compensation for the violation of the right to liberty and security. The ECtHR ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The decision emphasizes the importance of reasonable time limits for pre-trial detention and adequate conditions for detainees.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were lodged with the Court.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and raised other issues under the Convention.
* **Law:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 5 § 3 Violation:** The Court referred to established principles and previous judgments, such as Kharchenko v. Ukraine and Ignatov v. Ukraine, which dealt with similar issues. It found that the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive, constituting a breach of Article 5 § 3.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also found violations related to inadequate conditions of detention (referencing Melnik v. Ukraine and Sukachov v. Ukraine), the lack of effective remedies in domestic law for these conditions, and the lack of adequate compensation for the violation of Article 5 § 3.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court determined the amounts to be awarded to the applicants, considering its case-law and the documents in its possession.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must not be excessively long and that authorities must diligently pursue proceedings.
* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The judgment highlights the importance of adequate detention conditions, including sufficient space, temperature, hygiene, lighting, and access to facilities.
* **Lack of Effective Remedies:** The decision underscores the need for effective domestic remedies for violations of the Convention, including the right to compensation.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded specific amounts to the applicants for the violations suffered, providing a benchmark for similar cases.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues related to pre-trial detention and detention conditions. It serves as a reminder of the need for Ukraine to ensure that its legal system provides effective remedies for human rights violations and that detention conditions meet the standards set by the Convention.
CASE OF SHARONOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
This decision concerns three applications against Ukraine regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies for this issue. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the length of the proceedings in all three cases was indeed excessive and violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 13, as the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the length of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that Ukraine must pay the applicants specific amounts in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, ranging from EUR 1,200 to EUR 3,600, depending on the case. The Court also specified that interest would accrue on these amounts if payment was delayed.
The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, a summary of the facts, and the legal reasoning. The Court decided to join the three applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision focuses on the alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court referred to its established case-law, particularly the Nechay v. Ukraine case, to support its findings. The decision concludes with the application of Article 41, addressing the compensation to be awarded to the applicants. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is the initial judgment on these specific applications.
**** The most important provisions of this decision are the findings of violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. This confirms that Ukraine failed to ensure timely criminal proceedings and provide effective remedies for delays. The awarded compensations, while relatively modest, serve as a tangible acknowledgment of the State’s failure to uphold Convention rights. This decision may have implications for other similar cases in Ukraine, potentially prompting reforms in the judicial system to address the issues of lengthy proceedings and lack of effective remedies.
CASE OF ZLAGODA, TOV AND SLOBODENYUK v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Zlagoda, TOV and Slobodenyuk v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (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 case concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant company, Zlagoda, TOV, and the applicant, Mr. Slobodenyuk, in Ukrainian courts. The Court determined that the length of these proceedings was unreasonable and that the applicants did not have an effective remedy to challenge this excessive length. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants compensation 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.
* **Admissibility:** The Court declared the complaints regarding the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy admissible. However, other complaints raised by Zlagoda, TOV, in application no. 4735/22 were deemed inadmissible.
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13:** The Court held that the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy constituted a breach of these articles of the Convention.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Ukraine to pay Zlagoda, TOV, EUR 2,300 and Mr. Slobodenyuk EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any applicable taxes.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use ( for Ukraine):**
* **Length of Proceedings:** The decision highlights that civil proceedings lasting over four years at one level of jurisdiction, and even longer with appeals, can be considered excessive. This sets a precedent for evaluating similar cases in Ukraine.
* **Effective Remedy:** The ruling underscores the importance of having an effective domestic remedy to challenge the excessive length of judicial proceedings. Ukraine was found to be in violation because no such remedy was available to the applicants.
* **Compensation:** The awarded amounts provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving lengthy proceedings and lack of remedies in Ukraine.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely justice and effective remedies within the Ukrainian legal system.
