FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF DYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 26417/08 and 8 others -see appended list)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 6 July 2017        This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Dyachenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Nona Tsotsoria, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 June 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. In application no. 9783/09, the applicant 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 applicants in application no. 26417/08 concerning the proceedings between 27 March 1997 and 10 September 1997 are incompatible ratione temporis and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, as the Convention entered into force with respect to Ukraine on 11 September 1997.8. 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).9.  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.10.  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.11.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13.  In application no. 9783/09, the applicant submitted another complaint which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).IV.  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, 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.16.  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 applicants in application no. 26417/08 concerning the proceedings between 27 March 1997 and 10 September 1997, inadmissible; 3.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaint in application no. 9783/09 under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible; 4.  Holds that the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention; 5.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaint in application no. 9783/09 raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 6.  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. 7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Nona TsotsoriaActing Deputy 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 jurisdictionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant / household(in euros)[1]   26417/0828/05/2008(4 applicants)HouseholdSergey Aleksandrovich Dyachenko13/08/1955 Aleksandra Ivanovna Dyachenko05/07/1957 Aleksey Sergeyevich Dyachenko03/07/1983 Vladimir Sergeyevich Dyachenko07/03/1986  11/09/1997 28/12/2007 10 years, 3 months and 18 days3 levels of jurisdiction   3,100   36795/0821/07/2008Larisa Vasilyevna Zinovatnaya30/08/1958  26/12/2001 19/12/2007 5 years, 11 months and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction 500   9783/0905/02/2009Mykola Viktorovych Bychok07/02/1948  04/01/2001 25/10/2006 5 years, 9 months and 22 days2 levels of jurisdiction  Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions: The judgment of the Antratsytivskyy Local Court of Lugansk Region of 30 December 2005 enforced on 29 October 20082,600   826/1101/12/2010(3 applicants)HouseholdYevdokiya Grygorivna Vasyliv12/07/1928 Orest Ostapovych Tsyurak09/02/1974 Ganna Stepanivna Vasyliv20/10/1951  18/09/2002 21/02/2013 10 years, 5 months and 4 days3 levels of jurisdiction   2,400   50131/1122/07/2011Vitaliy Pavlovych Onyshchak19/04/1952  21/02/2007 16/10/2014 7 years, 7 months and 26 days2 levels of jurisdiction 2,100   37112/1303/06/2013Roman Mykhaylovych Galimon07/03/1976  10/06/2008 28/02/2013 4 years, 8 months and 19 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,200   43345/1326/06/2013Yevgeniy Stepanovych Slysh08/11/1938Sergiy Volodymyrovych VyatkinMerefa18/10/2006 21/12/2012 6 years, 2 months and 4 days3 levels of jurisdiction  400   53634/1308/08/2013Inna Konstantinovna Vdovenko19/08/1976Vladimir Ivanovich FedoretsZaporizhzhya05/09/2007 18/04/2013 5 years, 7 months and 14 days3 levels of jurisdiction 500   44853/1426/04/2014Viktor Petrovych Kovalchuk21/02/1952  11/09/1997  18/10/200010/06/1998  12/11/20139 months3 levels of jurisdiction 13 years and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6,200 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.