FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF ANTIMONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 54734/12 and 12 other applications -see appended table)              JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 5 November 2015   This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Antimonova and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Angelika Nußberger, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2015,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 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; 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 by which to submit their length-of-proceedings 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 there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention; 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 Russian roubles for application no. 35302/14 and to Ukrainian hryvnias for remaining applications 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 5 November 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Karen Reid Angelika Nußberger 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 /NationalityRepresentative 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]   54734/1213/08/2012Nadezhda Leontyevna ANTIMONOVA15/11/1983   01/07/2006 pending 9 year(s) and 1 month(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction3,600   54672/1315/08/2013Sergiy Volenovych ARTEMENKO29/08/1963 Tselovalnichenko Nataliya YevgenivnaКyiv25/11/2005 20/02/2013 7 year(s) and 3 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction900   68941/1326/10/2013Mariya Volodymyrivna MURAVSKA16/11/1949 Pavlyshyn Yuriy MykolayovychOdesa14/08/2006 15/05/2013 6 year(s) and 9 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction900   72862/1315/11/2013Ganna Vitaliyivna KRYUCHKOVA07/02/1973   17/10/2006 16/08/2011 04/08/2010 08/08/2013 3 year(s) and 10 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2 year(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction500   76691/1322/11/2013Larysa Ivanivna TKACHENKO17/09/1976   13/07/2001 15/11/2013 12 year(s) and 4 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction2,500   2633/1410/12/2013Yelena Timofeyevna KHIMENKO30/03/1946   27/03/2008 23/01/2014 5 year(s) and 10 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction500   5780/1424/02/2014Kateryna Anatoliyivna MYRONENKO07/04/1966   01/12/2006 24/10/2013 6 year(s) and 11 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction900   7902/1418/09/2013Oleg Borysovych TYKHENKO29/01/1957   16/01/2007 27/03/2013 6 year(s) and 2 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction600   13914/1403/02/2014Svitlana Yevgenivna LUNYEVA21/11/1956   08/10/2008 17/09/2014 5 year(s) and 11 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction500 35302/1426/03/2014Arnold Adilbekovich TADEYEV31/08/1938   26/04/1999 10/12/2013 14 year(s) and 7 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction3,800 36916/1407/04/2014Anatoliy Volodymyrovych NESTERYUK22/04/1953   10/12/2007 23/01/2014 6 year(s) and 1 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction300 37394/1403/05/2014Emil Orestovych PAVLYUK27/02/1962   10/11/2006 24/10/2013 6 year(s) and 11 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction900 52049/1414/07/2014Svitlana Oleksandrivna KORDIYAKA18/01/1971   24/09/2004 05/02/2013 19/01/2011 24/12/2013 6 year(s) and 4 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction 0 year(s) and 11 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction900 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.