FOURTH SECTION      CASE OF SHAMRAY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 15918/07 and 7 others -see appended list)             JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 29 June 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court  STRASBOURG 18 May 2017  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shamray and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus Kūris, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 27 April 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.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 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.  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).8.  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.9.  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.10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.14.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,1.  Decides to join the applications; 2.  Declares the applications admissible; 3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; 4.  Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Karen Reid Vincent A. De Gaetano Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention(excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant nameDate of birth Representative name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant / household(in euros)[1]   15918/0721/03/2007Aleksandr Viktorovich Shamray04/08/1954  01/07/2000 15/09/2009 9 years, 2 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   39085/0725/08/2007Household Aleksandra Apollonovna Shafranets22/09/1923 The applicant died on 13/08/2008. The second and third applicants has the quality of heirs. Lyudmila Petrovna Alaverdyan23/08/1952 Rafael Aleksanovich Alaverdyan25/05/1948[1]Sergiy Yevgenovych SyrotenkoKharkiv 22/09/2004  21/04/2006  24/03/2009 03/02/2006  23/09/2008  05/01/20121st set of proceedings1 years, 4 months and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 years, 5 months and 3 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 years, 9 months and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200 01/04/2007 23/07/20132nd set of proceedings6 years, 3 months and 23 days3 levels of jurisdiction   52870/0818/10/2008Lyubov Fedorovna Lebedinskaya22/10/1948 The applicant died on 06/06/2016. Her daughter, Ms M.S. Maltseva has the quality of heirVladimir Ivanovich BaranovOdesa03/09/1999 21/04/2008 8 years, 7 months and 19 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   2523/0920/12/2008Larisa Dmitriyevna Savchenko20/06/1949  03/08/2000 17/07/2008 7 years, 11 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   11171/0910/02/2009Vladimir Bronislavovich Repetskiy10/04/1960  16/09/1999  11/07/2005 12/03/2004  06/10/2008 4 years, 5 months and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3 years, 2 months and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   44694/1001/07/2010Mikhail Alekseyevich Shchur28/04/1964  21/06/2001 19/10/2010 9 years, 3 months and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   17285/1111/02/2011Fedor Ivanovich Rudyy01/04/1962  31/10/2006  24/01/2011  01/02/2013 21/05/2010  30/05/2011  23/12/2013 3 years, 6 months and 22 days2 levels of jurisdiction 4 months and 7 days2 levels of jurisdiction 10 months and 23 days2 levels of jurisdiction1,200   29774/1611/05/2016Anatoliy Sergiyovych Kletsenko06/03/1960  15/05/2008 11/11/2015 7 years, 5 months and 28 days3 levels of jurisdiction900 [1] Rectified on 29 June 2017: the date was 25/08/1948.[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.