FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF SEMYRODA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 45879/07 and 4 others -see appended list)      JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG 12 October 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Semyroda 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 21 September 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. The applicant in application no. 45879/07 also raised another complaint 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.  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).8.  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.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 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.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.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 45879/07 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 CONVENTION13.  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.”14.  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.15.  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 applications admissible; 3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil 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 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 12 October 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(in euros)[1]   45879/0709/10/2007Lyubov Vasylivna Semyroda15/10/1947  09/02/2000 18/04/2007 7 years, 2 months and 10 days3 levels of jurisdiction  Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement of the decision of the Oktyabrskyy Local Court of Poltava of 26 January 2006 awarding damages to the applicant from the state enterprise.2,600   29589/1104/05/2011Tetyana Sergiyivna Gorbenko16/06/1954Sergiy Sergiyovych PonomaryovBelogorsk29/03/2005 22/05/2012 7 years, 1 month and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900   31510/1112/05/2011Ivan Ivanovych Spasov22/08/1967  23/05/2001 30/11/2010 9 years, 6 months and 8 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2,400   15986/1616/03/2016Zinayida Dmytrivna Chirkova14/10/1949Dmytro Oleksandrovych DovbyshevOdesa12/10/2006  31/07/2007  18/09/2014 16/05/2007  12/12/2012  01/09/2015 7 months and 5 days3 levels of jurisdiction 5 years, 4 months and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction 11 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900   59784/1606/10/2016Tetyana Vitaliyivna Onyshchak26/07/1989  14/08/2009 07/04/2016 6 years, 7 months and 25 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.