Here’s a breakdown of the Semenov and Others v. Ukraine decision:
**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 domestic remedies to address this issue. The Court joined eleven similar applications, finding that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to expedite these proceedings. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 5,000 in respect of 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.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key facts of the applications, focusing on the applicants’ complaints regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
* **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 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 its previous judgment in *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court addressed additional complaints raised in one of the applications (no. 9200/20), finding them inadmissible as they did not meet the criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the appropriate amounts to be awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, referencing its case-law, particularly the *Karnaushenko* case.
* **Operative Provisions:**
* The Court declared the complaints regarding the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies admissible.
* It held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
* It ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants specified amounts for non-pecuniary damage within three months, along with default interest.
* **Appendix:** The judgment includes an appendix listing the applications, detailing the applicants’ names, dates of birth, representatives, the duration of the proceedings, the levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amounts awarded.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Confirmation of Systemic Problem:** The judgment underscores the ongoing issue of excessively lengthy civil proceedings in Ukraine and the absence of effective domestic remedies. This confirms a systemic problem that has been previously identified by the ECtHR.
* **Criteria for Assessing “Reasonable Time”:** The judgment reiterates the established criteria for assessing whether the length of proceedings is “reasonable” under Article 6 § 1, providing a framework for evaluating similar cases.
* **Award of Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for awarding compensation to individuals who have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of excessively lengthy proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The amounts awarded in this case can serve as a benchmark for future cases.
* **Timeframes and Interest:** The judgment specifies the timeframe for payment (three months) and the applicable default interest rate, which is crucial for ensuring compliance.
* **Reference to Karnaushenko v. Ukraine:** The judgment’s reliance on the *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* case highlights the continuity of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on this issue and reinforces the need for Ukraine to address the systemic problems identified in these cases.
**** This decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights the continuing problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the ineffectiveness of remedies in Ukraine. This has implications for Ukrainians seeking justice and for Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
