This is the analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in the case of Gavrysh and Kosynets 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 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicants, Gavrysh and Kosynets, complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings in Ukraine and the lack of effective domestic remedies to address this issue. The Court, referencing its established case-law, concluded that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to an effective remedy for their complaints. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Procedure:** Briefly describes the lodging of the applications and notification to the Ukrainian Government.
* **Facts:** Identifies the applicants and summarizes their complaints regarding the length of civil proceedings and 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:** Details the applicants’ complaints and the Court’s assessment based on the criteria of complexity, applicant’s conduct, authorities’ conduct, and what was at stake for the applicants. The Court referred to a previous similar case, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, where a violation was found.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, plus default interest.
* **Appendix:** Provides a table with details of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, dates of the proceedings, length of proceedings, levels of jurisdiction, and amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The decision reinforces the importance of the “reasonable time” requirement in civil proceedings. It can be used as a precedent in similar cases involving excessive delays in the Ukrainian judicial system.
* **Violation of Article 13:** The decision highlights the necessity of effective domestic remedies for complaints regarding the length of proceedings.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage can serve as a benchmark in similar cases against Ukraine.
* **Reference to Karnaushenko v. Ukraine:** The judgment’s reliance on this previous case emphasizes the consistency of the Court’s jurisprudence regarding similar issues in Ukraine.
* **** The decision is directly related to Ukraine and highlights systemic issues within the Ukrainian judicial system regarding the length of proceedings and the availability of effective remedies. This is particularly relevant for Ukrainians seeking redress for similar violations.
