Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Zlagoda, TOV and Slobodenyuk 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 European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant company, Zlagoda, TOV, and the applicant, Mr. Slobodenyuk, in Ukrainian courts. The Court determined that the length of these proceedings was unreasonable and that the applicants did not have an effective remedy to challenge this excessive length. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the two applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Admissibility:** The Court declared the complaints regarding the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy admissible. However, other complaints raised by Zlagoda, TOV, in application no. 4735\/22 were deemed inadmissible.
\n * **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13:** The Court held that the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy constituted a breach of these articles of the Convention.
\n * **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Ukraine to pay Zlagoda, TOV, EUR 2,300 and Mr. Slobodenyuk EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any applicable taxes.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use ( for Ukraine):**<\/p>\n
* **Length of Proceedings:** The decision highlights that civil proceedings lasting over four years at one level of jurisdiction, and even longer with appeals, can be considered excessive. This sets a precedent for evaluating similar cases in Ukraine.
\n * **Effective Remedy:** The ruling underscores the importance of having an effective domestic remedy to challenge the excessive length of judicial proceedings. Ukraine was found to be in violation because no such remedy was available to the applicants.
\n * **Compensation:** The awarded amounts provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving lengthy proceedings and lack of remedies in Ukraine.<\/p>\n
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely justice and effective remedies within the Ukrainian legal system.<\/p>\n