FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF KRASNYAKOVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 3011/06 and 10 others -see appended list)            JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 14 December 2017   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krasnyakovy and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Síofra O’Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MR SERGEY VIKTOROVICH SAMISHCHENKO6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no.  60072/08, the Court notes that the applicant died on 6 November 2014, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s son, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Samishchenko, has requested to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007, and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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.”8. The Court notes that in application no. 52865/08 the period to be taken into consideration in relation to the “reasonable time” complaint must be calculated from 11 September 1997, the date when Ukraine’s recognition of the right of individual petition before the Court took effect. Therefore, in so far as the complaint relates to the proceedings prior to 11 September 1997, it must be declared inadmissible as being beyond the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis (see Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 101, 6 October 2011). The Court therefore declares this part of application no. 52865/08 inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.9.  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 case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, (no. 23786/02, 30 November 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.  In applications nos. 52865/08 and 60072/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.15.  The Court has examined the applications 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, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786/02, §§ 61 and 66, 30 November 2006), 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. 52865/08, concerning the proceedings prior to 11 September 1997, 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 applications nos. 52865/08 and 60072/08 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.Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt André PotockiActing 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 jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household(in euros)[1]   3011/0617/12/2005HouseholdNatalya Grigoryevna Krasnyakova19/04/1951 Leonid Ivanovich Krasnyakov30/09/1949Nikolay Zakharovich Pashkov,Donetsk11/05/199913/03/201414 years, 10 months and 3 days3 levels of jurisdiction7,000   42733/0820/08/2008Irina Viktorovna Tatarnikova01/08/1955 01/10/2001 21/02/2008 6 years, 4 months and 21 days3 levels of jurisdiction500   52865/0818/10/2008Tatyana Anatolyevna Davydova15/01/1949 11/09/199728/05/200810 years, 8 months and 18 days3 levels of jurisdiction3,000   60072/0823/11/2008Viktor Petrovich Samishchenko29/10/1949 The applicant died on 6 November 2014.Mr Sergey Viktorovich Samishchenko, the applicant’s son, has the quality of heir. 24/10/200115/10/20086 years, 11 months and 22 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   675/1114/12/2010Sergiy Vitaliyovych Martynenko26/12/1971 05/10/2004  05/07/2005  12/06/2007  27/08/201023/06/2005  02/09/2011  08/06/2010  19/09/20148 months and 19 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 years, 1 months and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 years, 11 months and 28 days3 levels of jurisdiction 4 years and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   1494/1127/12/2010Lyudmila Alekseyevna Novoseltseva17/07/1947 10/08/200108/10/20109 years,1 month and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   52523/1202/08/2012HouseholdLyudmila Petrovna Kotman17/10/1960 Vladislav Sergeyevich Kotman04/10/1989 13/07/200030/03/201211 years, 8 months and 18 days3 levels of jurisdiction4,700   60181/1312/09/2013Nataliya Alekseyevna Yerofeyeva01/11/1961 04/12/2002  19/04/2004  20/11/2012 12/03/2003  18/11/2010  13/03/2013 3 months and 9 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 years and 7 months3 levels of jurisdiction 3 months and 22 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   61941/1311/09/2013Roman Vasylyovych Nedashkovskyy18/06/1974 22/03/200412/03/20138 years, 11 months and 19 days3 levels of jurisdiction2,300 22755/1405/03/2014Lidiya Filippovna Khodykina02/08/1950 29/09/200406/09/20138 years, 11 months and 9 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800 38340/1621/06/2016Lidiya Borysivna Dovga17/06/1950Dmytro Anatoliyovych GudymaLviv11/04/2006  23/02/200910/09/2008  18/11/20152 years and 5 months3 levels of jurisdiction 6 years, 8 months and 27 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.