Here’s a breakdown of the Lena Hakobyan and Others v. Armenia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Armenia in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) due to the excessive length of civil and administrative proceedings, which ranged from seven to thirteen years. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as the applicants lacked an effective domestic remedy for their complaints regarding the length of proceedings. The Court criticized the existing compensatory remedy in Armenia, noting its shortcomings and ineffectiveness. It urged Armenia to establish a dedicated compensatory remedy for excessive length of proceedings, potentially alongside an acceleratory remedy. The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and, in one case, for costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s subject matter: the length of proceedings and the lack of effective remedies. It lists the applicants, details of their applications, and the relevant domestic legal framework, including amendments to the Civil Code introducing compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This section details the relevant Armenian laws, including the Civil Code, Civil Code of Procedure, and State Fees Act. It also includes decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the reasonable time requirement for judicial proceedings.
* **Domestic Case-Law:** The judgment summarizes several domestic court cases related to compensation claims for excessive length of proceedings, highlighting instances where claims were dismissed or accepted, and the reasoning behind those decisions.
* **The Law:** This section contains the Court’s legal analysis.
* **Preliminary Issues:** The Court addresses the joinder of the applications and locus standi (legal standing) following the death of one of the applicants.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The Court examines the admissibility of the complaints, focusing on whether domestic remedies were exhausted. It assesses the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy under Armenian law, considering procedural guarantees, speediness, costs, amount of compensation, and payment of compensation.
* **Violation of Article 13:** The Court finds a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as the applicants lacked an effective domestic remedy for their complaints.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
* **Application of Article 46:** The Court discusses the respondent State’s obligation to abide by the judgment and suggests general measures to address the systemic issue of excessive length of proceedings.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decisions, including the finding of violations, the order for payment of compensation, and the dismissal of the remainder of the applicants’ claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Ineffectiveness of Existing Remedy:** The Court’s detailed analysis of the shortcomings of the existing compensatory remedy in Armenia is crucial. This includes issues related to the burden of proof on claimants, the length of compensation proceedings, and potential problems with court fees.
* **Criteria for Effective Remedy:** The judgment reiterates the key criteria for an effective compensatory remedy for excessively lengthy judicial proceedings, as established in previous case law (Scordino v. Italy).
* **Obligation to Establish Dedicated Remedy:** The Court explicitly calls on Armenia to establish a compensatory remedy specifically dedicated to complaints of excessive length of proceedings, signaling the need for systemic reform.
* **Guidance on General Measures:** The Court provides guidance on the type of individual and general measures that might be taken to put an end to the situation incompatible with the Convention.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it highlights the importance of having effective domestic remedies for addressing violations of the right to a fair trial, including the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Given the ongoing challenges in the Ukrainian judicial system, this decision could inform efforts to improve access to justice and ensure accountability for delays in legal proceedings.
