Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Korzhevskyy and Others v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **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.
\n * **Facts:** It references an appended table for the list of applicants and relevant details of their applications.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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.
\n * The Court dismissed part of one application (no. 25321\/24) concerning Ms. Korzhevska, finding she lacked victim status in one set of proceedings.
\n * The Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the applicants did not have effective remedies at their disposal.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court addressed the issue of compensation, awarding specific amounts to the applicants as indicated in the appended table.
\n * **Decision:** The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision to join the applications, declare certain complaints admissible, find a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, and order the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation.
\n * **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.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n
* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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.
\n * **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.
\n * **Compensation:** The judgment specifies the amounts to be paid to the applicants, providing a tangible outcome of the case.
\n * **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.<\/p>\n
**** 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.<\/p>\n