FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF KONDRAKHIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 2887/05 and 8 others -see appended list)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 30 November 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Kondrakhin 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 9 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In applications nos. 2887/05, 68256/12 and 66389/16, the 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 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, which read as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, 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.  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 Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to 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.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.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicant in application no. 66389/16 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 Ivanov v. Ukraine, (no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006).IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS13.  In applications nos. 2887/05 and 68256/12 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.14.  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.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15.  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.”16.  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.17.  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 concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 2887/05 and 68256/12 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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, except for application no. 5722/12, 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 30 November 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 criminal 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 length Levels of jurisdictionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (en euros)[1]   2887/0506/01/2005Yuriy Pavlovich Kondrakhin18/02/1957  11/09/1997 20/05/2004 6 years, 8 months and 10 days2 levels of jurisdiction 2,300   48927/1126/07/2011Ivan Vasilyevich Kalmykov16/06/1989  02/02/2007 18/11/2011 4 years, 9 months and 17 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,600   5722/1212/01/2012Mikhail Nikolayevich Burin14/11/1953  31/03/1999 12/09/2013 14 years, 5 months and 13 days4 levels of jurisdiction 3,000   68256/1216/10/2012Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Sinichuk01/02/1980  25/07/2006 02/12/2013 7 years, 4 months and 8 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900   57300/1621/09/2016Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych Lozinskyy28/10/1952  29/09/2008 pending More than 9 years and 1 month2 levels of jurisdiction 2,400   61243/1611/10/2016Valentyn Mykolayovych Kulykivskyy20/11/1978Yuliya Anatoliyivna BichukZhytomyr20/12/2010 pending More than 6 years and 10 months1 level of jurisdiction 2,400   64904/1602/11/2016Oleksiy Petrovych Levchenko20/03/1955  12/09/2003 pending More than 14 years and 1 month3 levels of jurisdiction 4,800   66389/1605/11/2016Svitlana Mykhaylivna Ivanova13/09/1973Pavel Vladimirovich GoliverKryvyy Rig30/03/2006  20/04/2016 29/12/2014  30/05/2016 8 years and 9 months2 levels of jurisdiction 1 month and 11 days2 levels of jurisdictionProt. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond 3,100   70406/1618/11/2016Sergiy Grygorovych Olkhovskyy06/12/1963  26/05/2008 30/05/2016 8 years and 5 days1 level of jurisdiction 3,000 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.