Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Shtefan and Others v. Ukraine:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Ukraine violated 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 criminal proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian law to address this issue. The Court found that the length of the proceedings was indeed excessive and that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to expedite the process. Consequently, the Court awarded the applicants various sums in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications that were lodged with the Court.
\n * **Facts:** The facts section briefly outlines that the applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies.
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Locus Standi:** The Court allowed Ms. Tetyana Yevgenivna Suchkova to continue the application on behalf of her deceased father, Mr. Yevgen Ivanovych Suchkov.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13:** This section forms the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 (reasonable time) and Article 13 (effective remedy). It references previous case law, particularly Nechay v. Ukraine, to support its findings.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, referencing its case-law, particularly Bevz v. Ukraine.
\n * **Operative Part:** The Court declares the applications admissible, holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, and orders Ukraine to pay the specified amounts to the applicants within three months, with interest accruing thereafter in case of default.
\n * **Appendix:** A table lists the applications, including the applicants’ details, dates of proceedings, length of proceedings, levels of jurisdiction involved, and the amounts awarded.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n
* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** The Court reaffirms that criminal proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time, considering the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and what is at stake for the applicant.
\n * **Violation of Article 13:** The Court emphasizes the importance of effective remedies for individuals who claim that the length of proceedings is excessive.
\n * **Compensation:** The judgment provides a clear indication of the amounts the Court considers reasonable for non-pecuniary damage in cases involving lengthy criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies in Ukraine. The amounts vary based on the length of the proceedings and the number of jurisdictional levels involved.
\n * **Locus Standi:** The decision confirms that family members can continue an application on behalf of a deceased applicant, provided it aligns with the Court’s established case law.<\/p>\n
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and has implications for Ukrainians, as it addresses systemic issues within the Ukrainian legal system regarding the length of criminal proceedings and the availability of effective remedies.<\/p>\n