FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF VOLENSHCHAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 1696/18 and 7 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG16 January 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Volenshchak and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,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.THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4.  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 CONVENTION5.  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.6.  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).7.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.8.  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.9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10.  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 CONVENTION11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers 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 complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu Acting 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’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant/household(in euros)[1]   1696/1829/12/2017Nadiya Antonivna VOLENSHCHAK1962 Avramenko Gennadiy MykolayovychChernigiv 03/04/2015 pending More than 9 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction4,200   13576/1807/03/2018Sergiy Oleksandrovych DENYSENKO1968 17/11/2014 06/02/2024 9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction1,800   23227/1811/05/2018Luiza Alfredivna YAKOVLEVA1968 18/11/2014 pending More than 10 year(s) and 1 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction4,200   47089/1825/09/2018Yevgen Viktorovych ZDORENKO1978 08/04/2015 26/10/2023 8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 19 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction1,800   7835/1929/01/2019Oleksandr Oleksandrovych VOLSKYY1970 21/11/2014 07/06/2024 9 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 18 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction2,400   42596/2324/11/20233 applicantsHouseholdAntonyna Ivanivna CHEREMNOVA1964Maksym Viktorovych CHEREMNOV1995Dmytro Viktorovych CHEREMNOV1989   13/06/2017 24/07/2023 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500   154/2415/12/2023Tamara Oleksiyivna KAPUSEVYCH1968 Ryzhenko DmytroKyiv22/06/2017 15/08/2023 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500   2873/2405/01/2024Oleksiy Borysovych BULGARU1977 Zaytsev Maksym SergiyovychOdesa19/10/2018 26/09/2023 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.