FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF DROGOBETSKAYA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 41662/05)        JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG  3 January 2013   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Drogobetskaya v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Boštjan M. Zupančič, President, Ann Power-Forde, Helena Jäderblom, judges,and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2012,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 41662/05) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Natalya Eduardovna Drogobetskaya (“the applicant”), on 28 February 2003.2. The applicant was represented by Mr V.A. Drogobetskiy, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Y. Zaytsev, succeeded by Ms V. Lutkovska, of the Ministry of Justice.3. On 27 September 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kharkiv.5. On 11 April 2000 the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant, along with two other persons, on suspicion of tax evasion and forgery in their capacity of a private company’s officials.6. On 24 April 2000 the applicant was indicted.7. Between 30 May 2000 and 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) considered the case.8. According to the information provided by the Government, in the course of proceedings the hearings were adjourned twelve times because the presiding judge was busy with another case and seven times at the request of the other co-defendants’ lawyers. In addition, there were five adjournments as the applicant or her lawyer was absent. Finally, hearings did not take place four times because the prosecutor was absent and three times owing to the absence of the witnesses. According to the applicant, however, the judge failed to duly notify the parties of the scheduled hearings on many occasions. Some of the adjournments, according to her, were caused by the judge’s inability to ensure the audio-recording of hearings requested by the applicant.9. Meanwhile, the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the higher-level courts about the length of the proceedings.

Outcome for Article 13: violation