FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KORNIYENKO AND CHERTAN v. UKRAINE(Application no. 59668/09)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG11 April 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Korniyenko and Chertan v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 October 2009.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWVictim status of Mr Y. CHERTAN (Second applicant)4. The Court has examined the application and considers that Mr Yevgeniy Yuryevich Chertan, the second applicant, lacks victim status because he was not a party to the domestic proceedings, the excessive length of which the applicants complained about.It follows that the application, in so far as it concerns the second applicant, is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court will examine the current application only with respect to the first applicant, Ms V. Korniyenko.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5. The first applicant complained 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. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.6. 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).7. In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.9. The Court further notes that the first applicant did not have at her disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the first applicant the sum indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation