FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SHPYTALNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 52921/21 and 5 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG5 September 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Shpytalnyy and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Carlo Ranzoni, President, Mārtiņš Mits, María Elósegui, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 July 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.4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal 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 LAWJOINDER 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.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.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 Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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 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.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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  In applications nos. 52921/21 and 10054/23, the applicants submitted other complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13.  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.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIXList 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’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal lengthLevels of jurisdictionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]   52921/2120/10/2021Petro Anatoliyovych SHPYTALNYY1981   06/06/2007 06/09/2021 14 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)1 level(s) of jurisdiction Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond - the applicant had been under an undertaking not to abscond between 19/07/2007 and 06/09/2021 (Ivanov v. Ukraine(no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97,7 December 2006) and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine(no. 14613/03, § 59,18 February 2010))8,600   10054/2311/02/2023Igor Grygorovych PYEKHOV1974 Chuyeva Kateryna OleksandrivnaOdesa31/03/2009 pending More than15 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 15 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond - the applicant had been under an undertaking not to abscond since 21/04/2009 (see Ivanovv. Ukraine, no. 15007/02,7 December 2006 and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine,no. 14613/03, 18 February 2010)7,200   16522/2324/03/2023Dmytro Yuriyovych GOLOVATYY1979   25/05/2017 pending More than7 year(s) and 21 day(s)2 level(s) of jurisdiction  1,800   27249/2327/06/2023Dmytro Viktorovych YATSENKO1980 Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo OleksandrovychKyiv26/03/2007 14/09/2023 16 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 20 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction  6,000   37538/2328/09/2023Volodymyr Vyacheslavovych TYNYAKOV1969 Bagriy Oleg LyubomyrovychLviv01/11/1998 31/05/2023 24 year(s) and 7 month(s)3 level(s) of jurisdiction  7,200   37803/2321/09/2023Oleksandr Antonovych STEPANYUK1982   16/02/2015 30/05/2023 8 year(s) and3 month(s) and 15 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction  1,200  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.