FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 7192/04 and 8 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 Sokolov 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.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  In application no. 7192/04, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009.IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS13.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.14.  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.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15.  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.”16.  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.17.  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, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, 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 that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints 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. 6.  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 birthStart 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]   7192/0410/02/2004Aleksandr Ivanovich SOKOLOV04/04/194516/04/2001  18/03/2003 24/07/2007  19/05/2010 6 years, 3 months and 9 days3 levels of jurisdiction 7 years, 2 months and 2 days3 levels of jurisdiction  Art. 6 (1) - non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions: Decision of Kyivskyy District Court of Odesa of 24/10/2002 Decision of Kyivskyy District Court of Odesa of 22/07/20042,600   59887/0828/10/2008Eleonora Klavdiyevna TARNAVSKAYA07/11/1946 31/05/2002 12/08/2008 6 years, 2 months and 13 days3 levels of jurisdiction 500   1203/0923/12/2008Nina Viktorovna VASILINENKO01/02/1949 12/05/2003 28/05/2010 7 years, 17 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,800   35037/0916/06/2009Lidiya Ivanovna BONDAR30/07/1936 10/12/1997 26/05/2009 11 years, 5 months and 17 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3,000   49032/0928/08/2009Vira Ivanivna VOLOSHYNA18/03/195730/09/1998  25/11/2005 09/06/2004  22/06/2009 5 years, 8 months and 11 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3 years, 6 months and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction 1,800   17989/1022/03/2010(2 applicants)Sergiy Ivanovych BUBLYK02/05/1955 Viktor Mykolayovych STEPANCHENKO01/10/1947 18/09/2002  15/12/2004 14/08/2003  16/09/2009 10 months and 28 days3 levels of jurisdiction 4 years, 9 months and 2 days3 levels of jurisdiction 500   23264/1128/03/2011Edem Yunusovich EMIROV23/10/1971 30/11/2006 21/06/2011 4 years, 6 months and 23 days2 levels of jurisdiction 1,600   36887/1103/06/2011Vitaliy Dmitriyevich ZELENYY03/11/1935 27/05/2004 23/12/2010 6 years, 6 months and 27 days3 levels of jurisdiction 900   7190/1530/12/2014Sergey Vasilyevich KHITUN27/12/195103/08/2008  10/09/2008 28/08/2008  04/07/2014 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 5 years, 9 months and 25 days3 levels of jurisdiction 600  [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.