FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SERGIYENKO AND SACHENKO v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 78377/13 and 41506/16)             JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 11 January 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sergiyenko and Sachenko 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 7 December 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 application no. 78377/13 the applicant 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.  THE LOCUS STANDI OF MR YURIY VOLODYMYROVYCH SERGIYENKO6.  As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 78377/13, the Court notes that the applicant died on 23 November 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s minor son, Yuriy Volodymyrovych Sergiyenko, has requested through his legal representative to pursue the application on his father’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007, and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION7.  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.”8.  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).9.  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.10.  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.11.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINT13.  The applicant in application no. 78377/13 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).V.  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, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds 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 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 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 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 11 January 2018, 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 lengthLevels of jurisdictionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   78377/1329/11/2013Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Sergiyenko21/09/1957 The applicant died on 23 November 2015. His son, Yuriy Volodymyrovych Sergiyenko, has the quality of heir.Sergiy Yevgenovych SyrotenkoKharkiv10/09/2007 28/11/2014 7 years, 2 months and 19 days2 levels of jurisdiction  Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond - from 17 September 2007 onwards the applicant was put under undertaking not to abscond; the latter preventive measure was not changed throughout the whole duration of criminal proceedings.2,300   41506/1607/07/2016Anatoliy Ivanovych Sachenko30/11/1970Lyudmyla Mykhaylivna KolotyloCherkasy16/01/2009  01/12/2009  04/08/2010  14/02/201105/06/2009  03/12/2009  16/08/2010  pending4 months, 21 days2 levels of jurisdiction 3 days2 levels of jurisdiction 13 days2 levels of jurisdiction More than 6 years, 8 months and 27 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,800 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.