Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in the case of Kostyuk 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 expedite these proceedings. 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 effective remedies for this issue. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants sums for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Ukraine concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings.
\n* **Facts:** The judgment refers to a table that includes a list of applicants and relevant details of their applications.
\n* **Law:**
\n * The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter.
\n * The Court assessed the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, noting the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (complexity, applicant’s conduct, authorities’ conduct, and what was at stake for the applicant).
\n * The Court referred to a previous similar case against Ukraine, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, where a violation had already been established.
\n * The Court concluded that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that no effective remedy was available to the applicants.
\n* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts to be awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, referring to its previous case-law.
\n* **Decision:** The Court unanimously:
\n * Joined the applications.
\n * Declared the complaints admissible.
\n * Held that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13.
\n * Ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts to the applicants within three months, with a provision for default interest.
\n* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a list of applications, including details such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, start and end dates of proceedings, total length of proceedings, levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n
* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** This confirms that excessively long civil proceedings without justification constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
\n* **Violation of Article 13:** The lack of effective remedies to address or expedite excessively long proceedings is a violation of the right to an effective remedy.
\n* **Precedent:** The judgment reinforces the ECtHR’s established case-law on the issue of lengthy proceedings, particularly concerning Ukraine, referencing the Karnaushenko v. Ukraine case.
\n* **Compensation:** The decision provides a reference for the amounts that can be awarded for non-pecuniary damage in cases of excessively long civil proceedings. The amounts vary based on the length of the proceedings and other factors.
\n* **Timeframe:** The decision specifies that the respondent State must pay the applicants within three months, with default interest applicable after that period.
\n* **** The decision can be used by Ukrainian citizens as a precedent in cases of violation of terms of consideration of cases in national courts.<\/p>\n