FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF DYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 26417/08 and 8 others -see appended list)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 6 July 2017        This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Dyachenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Nona Tsotsoria, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The applications were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”).THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 9783/09, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”Article 13“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”7. After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicants in application no. 26417/08 concerning the proceedings between 27 March 1997 and 10 September 1997 are incompatible ratione temporis and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as the Convention entered into force with respect to Ukraine on 11 September 1997.8. As regards the other complaints raised under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).9. In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, (no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004), and Efimenko v. Ukraine, (no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. In application no. 9783/09, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation