FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 42664/21 and 10 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG20 July 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Bondarenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Lado Chanturia, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2023,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.4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER 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.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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.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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).8.  In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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 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.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.REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 56948/21 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.13.  The Court has examined this complaint 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, it either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  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.”15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible and the remainder of application no. 56948/21 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal 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 20 July 2023, 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 criminal 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 lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]   42664/2116/08/2021Viktor Igorovych BONDARENKO1987 Yama Dmytro MykolayovychZaporizhhzya21/12/2013 18/03/2021 7 years and 2 months and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900   49639/2129/09/2021Olena Borysivna KOZLOVETS1960 Makhmutov Oleg ArturovychMykolayiv19/06/2018 14/12/2021 3 years and 5 months and 26 days1 level of jurisdiction 900   56948/2110/11/2021Sergiy Viktorovych KANDRASHYN1963 Chuyeva Kateryna OleksandrivnaOdesa06/11/2012 13/12/2022 10 years and 1 month and 8 days 1 level of jurisdiction 5,500   907/2218/12/2021Vitaliy Andriyovych MIROSHNYCHENKO1988 Bondarenko Oleg GrygorovychDniprio17/08/2012 30/09/2022 10 years and 1 month and 14 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2,400   1909/2229/12/2021Andriy Gennadiyovych KRUPODER1977 Shapoval Olena ViktorivnaKyiv25/08/2015 pending More than 7 years and 9 months and 15 days1 level of jurisdiction 3,000   6592/2224/01/2022Sergiy Sergiyovych OLIYNYK1982 Bondarenko Yuriy YuryevichLysychansk16/07/2018 27/09/2021 3 years and 2 months and 12 days 1 level of jurisdiction 900   10526/2224/01/2022Yevgeniya Volodymyrivna OLIYNYK1993 Bondarenko Yuriy YuryevichLysychansk27/06/2018 18/08/2021 3 years and 1 months and 23 days 1 level of jurisdiction 900   11498/2216/02/2022Vladyslav Mykolayovych MOROZOV1976   12/11/2010 17/08/2021 10 years and 9 months and 6 days 1 level of jurisdiction 4,800   16627/2223/02/2022Mykola Sergiyovych YURCHENKO1984 Chuyeva Kateryna OleksandrivnaOdesa15/05/2014 pending More than 9 years and 25 days1 level of jurisdiction 3,600 28859/2216/05/2022Volodymyr Mykhaylovych POGORILYAK1959 Bukhtoyarova alias Andreykovych Oksana VasylivnaUzhgorod04/04/2014 pending More than 9 years and 2 months and 5 days2 levels of jurisdiction 2,400 31377/2202/06/2022Viktor Petrovych KYTSYUK1981 Podosinov Andriy OleksandrovychKyiv22/12/2014 03/02/2022 7 years and 1 month and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.