FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF MOROZOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 2318/07 and 3 others -see appended list)          JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 9 May 2018under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.  STRASBOURG 8 March 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Morozov and Others 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 15 February 2018,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. In applications nos. 2318/07 and 65272/12 the 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.  In respect of application no. 44063/08 lodged on 12 August 2008, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six‑month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the final decision in the applicant’s case had been delivered on 26 September 2007. The Government, referring to domestic law provisions, stated that the applicant should have received a copy of the decision without significant delay.8.  The Court observes that the Government’s assertion is based on an assumption, whilst the applicant provided a consistent explanation and documentary evidence that the final decision in his case had been served on him on 13 February 2008, hence less than six months before he lodged his application before the Court.9.  In the light of the above, the Court considers that the above application cannot be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit.10.  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).11.  In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, (no. 23786/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.12.  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.13.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.14.  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-LAW15.  The applicants in applications nos. 2318/07 and 65272/12 submitted other complaints relating to the non-enforcement of domestic decisions which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table).16.  The Court finds that this part of the applications is a follow-up to the Burmych judgment and shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure envisaged therein (Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al, § 221, 12 October 2017), i.e. struck out and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for it to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the pilot judgment in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009).IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS17.  In application no. 2318/07 the applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.18.  The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19.  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.”20.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine, no. 23786/02, §§ 61 and 66, 30 November 2006), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.21.  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.  Decides to strike the part of applications nos. 2318/07 and 65272/12 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and transmit them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the above-mentioned Ivanov pilot judgment; 3.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law (see appended table) admissible, and the remainder of application no. 2318/07 inadmissible; 4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; 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 8 March 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 civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant nameDate of birthStart of proceedingsEnd of proceedingsTotal length Levels of jurisdictionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant(in euros)[1]   2318/0719/12/2006Anatoliy Nikolayevich Morozov03/02/195521/05/1999  10/10/200215/12/1999  14/12/20106 months and 25 days3 levels of jurisdiction 8 years, 2 months and 5 days3 levels of jurisdictionArt. 6 (1) - non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions - lengthy non-enforcement of the decision of Nizhnyogirskyy District Court of AR Crimea of 29 March 2004[2] 1,600   44063/0812/08/2008Georgiy Dmytrovych Parshyn10/10/193227/04/199826/09/20079 years and 5 months3 levels of jurisdiction 1,600   65272/1201/10/2012Nina Vasylivna Voytsekhovska26/01/1964Set No. 116/11/2004  29/06/2005 Set No. 201/06/2005  20/09/2012 Set No. 313/06/2005 Set No. 413/06/2005  15/10/2009 Set No. 513/06/2005  01/11/2011  20/09/2012 24/02/2005  04/04/2012  02/11/2011  09/08/2013  22/02/2013  07/11/2006  15/11/2016  06/07/2010  03/11/2011  23/12/2013 3 months and 9 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 years, 9 months and 7 days3 levels of jurisdiction 6 years, 5 months and 2 days3 levels of jurisdiction 10 months and 21 days3 levels of jurisdiction 7 years, 8 months and 10 days3 levels of jurisdiction 1 year, 4 months and 26 days3 levels of jurisdiction 7 years, 1 month and 1 day3 levels of jurisdiction 5 years and 24 days3 levels of jurisdiction 3 days3 levels of jurisdiction 1 year, 3 months and 4 days3 levels of jurisdictionArt. 6 (1), Prot. 1 Art. 1 -non-enforcement ordelayed enforcement ofdomestic decisions -Local Court of KirovskDistrict of Kirovograd,3 February 20031,100   41125/1421/05/2014Vladimir Ivanovich Grebenyuk09/08/194807/11/2001  21/06/200504/02/2005  24/10/20133 years, 2 months and 29 days3 levels of jurisdiction 8 years, 4 months and 4 days3 levels of jurisdiction 2,500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.[2] Rectified on 9 May 2018: the date was “24 March 2004.”