FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF P.S. AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 16677/16 and 6 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG14 December 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of P.S. and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 23 November 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.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 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.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;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 pointsDone in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Mārtiņš MitsActing Deputy Section Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList 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 birth Representative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary andnon-pecuniaryper applicant(in euros)[1]   16677/1616/03/2016 P.S.1979   07/10/2015 pending More than 8 years and 27 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 2,100   8582/2202/02/2022Orest Orestovych TANASIYCHUK1974   10/03/2016 07/05/2020 19/08/2020 24/12/2019 04/06/2020 pending(in April 2023 the applicant was put on a wanted persons’ list as he had fled the country)More than 7 years and 29 days 1 level of jurisdiction   1,700   17692/2210/03/2022Oleg Anatoliyovych DANYLYUK1971 Ogorilko Yuriy VolodymyrovychChervonograd Lviv region24/03/2017 11/05/2023 6 years and1 month and18 days 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,500   20914/2225/03/2022Maksym Sergiyovych MYEDVYEDYEV1988   13/02/2015 09/11/2021 6 years and8 months and28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 900   34299/2222/06/2022Sergiy Oleksiyovych MAKOVEY1964   21/04/2009 23/02/2022 12 years and10 months and3 days 3 levels of jurisdiction 4,200   53765/2227/10/2022Leonid Leonidovych KOTSENKO1980   30/11/2015 pending More than 7 years and 11 months and 4 days 2 levels of jurisdiction2,100   7447/2327/01/2023Iryna Mykolayivna MAZURYK1965 Korzun Dmytro LeonidovychKyiv15/06/2015 13/09/2022(notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 29/09/2022) 7 years and3 months 3 levels of jurisdiction 900 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.