Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Alengoz 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 European Convention on Human Rights in the cases of six applicants. The Court found that the criminal proceedings against the applicants were excessively long and that Ukrainian law did not provide an effective remedy for this violation. Consequently, the Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses six joined applications against Ukraine.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them and the lack of effective remedies in Ukraine.
\n * **Joinder of the Applications:** Due to the similar subject matter, the Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13:** The Court assessed the length of the proceedings based on the complexity of the cases, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
\n * **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The Court referred to its previous judgment in *Nechay v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues.
\n * **Findings:** The Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the applicants did not have effective remedies available to them.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded the applicants specific amounts in compensation, considering its previous case law.
\n * **Operative Provisions:** The Court declared the applications admissible, held that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13, and ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts to the applicants within three months, with interest on any delayed payments.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n
* **Violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1:** The decision confirms that excessively long criminal proceedings without proper justification constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
\n * **Violation of Article 13:** The decision highlights the importance of having effective remedies available at the national level to address complaints about the length of proceedings.
\n * **Compensation:** The judgment provides a clear indication of the amounts that the Court considers reasonable for non-pecuniary damage in cases involving lengthy proceedings.
\n * **Precedent:** The decision reinforces the Court’s existing case law on the issue of lengthy proceedings in Ukraine, particularly referencing the *Nechay v. Ukraine* case.<\/p>\n
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it highlights systemic issues with the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies. It serves as a reminder of Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure timely justice and provide avenues for redress when these rights are violated.<\/p>\n