FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SITNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 20100/07 and 5 others -see appended list)           JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 2 March 2017   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sitnik and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Erik Møse, President, Yonko Grozev, Mārtiņš Mits, judges,and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 9 February 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. 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 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.”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 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.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 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.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, 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 20100/07 and 4697/13 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal 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 2 March 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Karen Reid Erik Møse 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 jurisdictionAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant (in euros)[1]   20100/0711/04/2007Irina Vasilyevna Sitnik15/05/1957  14/02/2002 12/07/2011 9 years, 4 months and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,800   35763/0801/08/2007Svitlana Mykhaylivna Gasyak11/09/1976  28/02/2007 20/06/2013 6 years, 3 months and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction500   36663/1019/06/2010Anatoliy Mykhaylovych Glushko09/06/1952Oleg Igorovych VeremiyenkoKyiv09/11/2001 22/02/2011 9 years, 3 months and 14 days2 levels of jurisdiction2,400   4697/1329/12/2012Mykola Mykolayovych Zanko30/10/1951  19/08/2006 11/03/2014 7 years, 6 months and 21 days3 levels of jurisdiction1,200   65330/1304/10/2013Valentin Viktorovich Lanovenko16/02/1977  14/03/2006 29/08/2013 7 years, 5 months and 16 days2 levels of jurisdiction1,800   9451/1410/01/2014Nikolay Prokopyevich Sibulatov22/10/1944  05/03/2002  16/02/201628/07/2013  pending11 years, 4 months and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction More than 11 months3 levels of jurisdiction2,500  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.