FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BUGLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 28467/18 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG18 July 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Buglov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Mārtiņš Mits, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2024,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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5.  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.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 applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11.  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 sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;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 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIXList 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’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal length Levels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]   28467/1830/05/2018Aleksandr Sergeyevich BUGLOV1968  31/05/2017 29/09/2021 4 year(s) and 4 month(s)2 level(s) of jurisdiction 800   19199/2328/04/2023Svitlana Yevgenivna CHULKOVA1947  25/03/201630/01/2020 12/06/201929/12/2022 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and19 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction500   28939/2310/07/2023Sergiy Igorovych ALIFANOV1994 Pantyukhov Valeriy SergiyovychDnipro11/12/2017 pending More than 6 year(s) and6 month(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction2,400   32742/2311/08/2023Vadym Vasylyovych LYATSEVYCH1975Kutsak Olena MatviyivnaChernivtsі31/12/2014 13/04/2023 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and14 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction1,200   32936/2314/08/2023Oleksandr Vasylyovych YERMOLOVYCH1958  07/04/2015 26/04/2023 8 year(s) and 20 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200   38251/2303/10/2023Volodymyr Ivanovych PAROVOY1961  16/01/2020 pending More than 4 year(s) and4 month(s) and 26 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction1,200   41227/2309/11/2023Rayisa Vasylivna SHAMCHUK1969 Kozachuk Mykhaylo VasylyovychKyiv02/08/2019 pending More than 4 year(s) and10 month(s) and 9 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.