****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
This judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerns five joined applications lodged by Ukrainian citizens against Ukraine regarding the excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court unanimously ruled that Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Additionally, the Court found a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of any effective domestic remedy for the applicants to challenge or expedite these prolonged proceedings. Relying on its established case-law, the ECtHR found no factual or legal justification for the delays, which in some of these cases stretched over eight years. Consequently, the Court ordered the Ukrainian State to pay the applicants non-pecuniary damages ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 3,000.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Changes
The decision is structured systematically to facilitate the fast-track resolution of repetitive cases through a Committee of three judges:
* **Procedure (Paragraphs 1–2):** Establishes the origin of the applications under Article 34 of the Convention and notes that the Ukrainian Government was formally notified.
* **The Facts (Paragraphs 3–4):** Refers to the appended table for individual applicant details and identifies the core grievance: the excessive length of civil proceedings and the absence of an effective domestic remedy.
* **The Law (Paragraphs 5–11):**
* *Joinder of the Applications (Paragraph 5):* The Court merges the five applications into a single procedure due to their common legal and factual background.
* *Substantive Assessment (Paragraphs 6–11):* The Court outlines the criteria for “reasonable time” and references the landmark precedent *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*. It concludes that the domestic proceedings failed the reasonable time test and that no effective domestic remedy exists in Ukraine for such complaints.
* **Application of Article 41 (Paragraph 12):** Addresses just satisfaction, awarding specific monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Operative Part:** The formal, binding rulings of the Court, including the joinder, the admissibility, the finding of violations, and the payment terms (including default interest).
* **Appendix:** A detailed tabular breakdown of each applicant’s case, specifying the duration of the domestic proceedings, the levels of jurisdiction involved, and the individual financial awards.
**Changes compared to previous versions/cases:**
This judgment does not alter established legal principles but rather consolidates them. It represents a streamlined, standardized procedural approach. Instead of delivering lengthy individual judgments, the Court utilizes a Committee format and an appended table to resolve repetitive cases efficiently, applying the well-settled principles from the leading case of *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine* (2006).
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Most Important for Practical Use
For legal practitioners and journalists tracking human rights compliance, the most critical provisions of this decision are:
* **The “Reasonable Time” Criteria (Paragraph 7):** The Court reiterates the classic four-pronged test used to assess the length of proceedings: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant, the conduct of the relevant state authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute.
* **The Systemic Precedent (Paragraph 8):** By citing *Karnaushenko v. Ukraine*, the Court emphasizes that the structural problem of delayed civil justice in Ukraine remains unresolved, allowing the Court to apply a simplified verification process.
* **The Double Violation (Paragraph 11):** The Court explicitly links the violation of Article 6 § 1 (fair trial) with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). This confirms that Ukrainian law still lacks a functional compensatory or accelerative mechanism for litigants facing judicial delays.
* **The Financial Benchmarks (The Appendix):** The appended table serves as a practical guide for calculating damages. For instance, a delay of over 8 years across 3 to 4 levels of jurisdiction yielded awards between EUR 500 and EUR 3,000, depending on the specific circumstances and stakes of the domestic litigation.
* **Default Interest Terms (Operative Part):** The judgment specifies that the awarded sums must be paid within three months of the judgment becoming final, after which simple interest is applicable at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
