FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF IVAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 24500/07 and 13 others -see appended list)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 12 January 2017   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Ivan and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Khanlar Hajiyev, President, Faris Vehabović, Carlo Ranzoni, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2016,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.  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 cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 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.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.13.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 CONVENTION14.  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.”15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.16.  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 civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; 4.  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. 5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Hasan Bakırcı Khanlar Hajiyev 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 /Date of registrationRepresentative name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant(in euros)[1]   24500/0717/05/2007Nadezhda Alekseyevna IVAN24/01/1961   26/12/2000 25/12/2006 6 years3 levels of jurisdiction500   51276/0706/11/2007Anna Ivanovna REMNYOVA21/04/1957   12/01/2001 30/10/2008 7 years, 9 months and 19 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   15998/0823/03/2008Vasyl Grygorovych TROFYMCHUK10/09/1944  11/09/1997  11/10/2000 03/11/1999  16/10/2007 2 years, 1 month and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction 7 years and 6 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   49123/0822/09/2008Valentin Prokofyevich SHARUDA03/07/1941Renat Kambardzhanovich MukhamedzhanovDnipropetrovsk14/04/1999  22/11/2006 24/02/2005  06/05/2008 5 years, 10 months and 11 days3 levels of jurisdiction 1 year, 5 months and 15 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   4393/1025/12/2009Tetyana Oleksandrivna SVYATA06/04/1963  18/12/2002  01/07/2003  30/09/2003  15/10/2007  19/11/2008  25/06/2009 27/05/2003  04/09/2003  29/08/2007  21/10/2008  26/05/2009  29/12/2009 5 months and 10 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 months and 4 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3 years and 11 months3 levels of jurisdiction 1 year and 7 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 months and 8 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 months and 5 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   18598/1015/03/2010Mariya Ivanivna MATELESHKO06/07/1949  18/12/2001  25/12/2008 12/09/2007  04/03/2011 5 years, 8 months and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 years, 2 months and 8 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   35062/1008/06/2010Olga Nikiforovna ZELENTSOVA20/06/1953   26/06/2001 01/04/2010 8 years, 9 months and 7 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   26352/1114/04/2011 SD, PBP08/02/2000  14/02/2006  31/08/2010 30/03/2010  04/04/2013 4 years, 1 month and 17 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2 years, 7 months and 5 days3 levels of jurisdiction900   56854/1126/08/2011Roksolyana Ivanivna LENCHEVSKA23/03/1946   11/09/1997 23/05/2011 13 years, 8 months and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction4,800 56272/1222/08/2012Yevgeniya Mykolayivna SHUSTYTSKA05/11/1953   03/11/2004 08/06/2012 7 years, 7 months and 6 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200 37013/1303/06/2013Nataliya Oleksiyivna OLEFIRENKO27/02/1957   15/06/2006 28/02/2013 6 years, 8 months and 14 days2 levels of jurisdiction1,800 47193/1316/07/2013Yekaterina Georgiyevna KHMEL11/10/1962   01/03/2005 09/12/2015 10 years, 9 months and 9 days3 levels of jurisdiction3,900 12066/1502/03/2015Oleksiy Andriyovych VORONKO09/05/1996  02/10/2007  03/08/2010 09/09/2009  04/09/2014 1 year, 11 months and 8 days3 levels of jurisdiction 4 years, 1 month and 2 days3 levels of jurisdiction500 60798/1511/11/2015Vitaliy Vasylyovych KUTSEVYCH01/02/1949 Applicant died on 16/04/2016.Ms Lidiya Andriyivna Kutsevych has the quality of heir.  06/03/2009 17/09/2015 6 years, 6 months and 12 days3 levels of jurisdiction900 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.