FOURTH SECTION    CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 24686/07 and 8 others -see appended list)         JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 6 April 2017     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dudnikov 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 16 March 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.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 principally 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.  After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 1326/08 concerning the proceedings between 3 February 1997 and 10 September 1997 must be dismissed as incompatible ratione temporis, the Convention having entered into force in respect of Ukraine on 11 September 1997.8.  Also, the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 45407/10 concerning the proceedings between 23 March and 23 November 2011 must be dismissed as they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.9.  As regards the other complaints raised under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, 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).10.  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.11.  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.12.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS14.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.15.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16.  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.”17.  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.18.  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 complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 1326/08 concerning the proceedings between 3 February 1997 and 10 September 1997, and the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 45407/10 concerning the proceedings between 23 March and 23 November 2011, inadmissible; 3.  Declares the other complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; 4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; 5.  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. 6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 April 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Karen Reid Vincent A. De Gaetano 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 nameDate of birthStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant / household(in euros)[1]   24686/0706/06/2007Anatoliy Andreyevich Dudnikov22/12/193806/12/1999 03/01/2007 7 years and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   45673/0710/10/2007Yaroslav Valentynovych Dobrokhanskyy26/09/197111/08/2003 12/06/2011 7 years, 10 months and 2 days3 levels of jurisdiction800   1326/0813/12/2007Valentina Vlasovna Bogatova03/01/194811/09/1997 08/05/2007 9 years, 7 months and 28 days3 levels of jurisdiction2,400   24811/0812/05/2008Mykola Vasylyovych Gumennyy20/07/194828/11/2001  27/04/2009 16/12/2008  10/09/2010 7 years and 19 days3 levels of jurisdiction 1 year, 4 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   30130/0810/06/2008HouseholdTatyana Mikhaylovna Tishchenko28/06/1952Nikolay Vladimirovich Tishchenko14/04/1973Vladimir Vladimirovich Tishchenko11/11/197514/02/2001 17/12/2008 7 years, 10 months and 4 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,500   46207/0812/09/2008Lyubov Oleksandrivna Kladko07/04/196209/10/2000 13/03/2008 7 years, 5 months and 5 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   5867/0919/01/2009(26 applicants)Ganna Gerasymivna Yurchenko11/06/1943Yevgeniya Kyrylivna Grygoryan11/05/1952Larysa Kuzmivna Uporova27/05/1959Tosya Trokhymivna Ryasna06/08/1938Vira Grygorivna Grytsenko09/02/1953Anzhela Anatoliyivna Ivanichenko04/01/1971Lyudmyla Oleksandrivna Koropova10/07/1944Tetyana Vasylivna Bobukh09/11/1954Tetyana Kyrylivna Plakhotnyuk10/08/1959Svitlana Ivanivna Slipchenko25/07/1966Rayisa Mykolayivna Shemshur10/09/1941Lyubov Sergiyivna Martynova24/10/1944Nataliya Ivanivna Marunych21/03/1957Tamara Yevgenivna Ageyenko03/10/1959Iryna Valeriyivna Bryzhata31/01/1972Ganna Ivanivna Donets15/10/1946Tamara Ivanivna Kozinets05/02/1944Galyna Grygorivna Kotenko16/09/1960Nataliya Grygorivna Kravchenko08/08/1958Lyudmyla Danylivna Levytska02/07/1958Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna Medvedyeva08/03/1958Svitlana Saveliyivna Pastukhova11/01/1949Vira Volodymyrivna Petrenko28/02/1963Lyubov Mykolayivna Rogachova23/04/1961Valentyna Vasylivna Rudychenko23/07/1948Valentyna Pavlivna Sirenko17/02/194914/04/2003  21/01/2008 25/09/2007  05/12/2011 4 years, 5 months and 12 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3 years, 10 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   29330/0920/05/2009Lyubov Semenovna Pyshna11/08/196001/04/1999 21/01/2009 9 years, 9 months and 21 days3 levels of jurisdiction2,400   45407/1015/07/2010Galyna Ivanivna Myronova17/10/195517/10/2003 09/11/2009 6 years and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction350 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.