FIFTH SECTION      CASE OF NAKONECHNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Application no. 34900/08 and 10 others -see appended list)            JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 11 January 2018   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nakonechnyy 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 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 their pre-trial detention. 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:Article 5 § 3“3.  Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”7.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).8.  In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11.  In applications nos. 38999/09, 17756/11, 4925/12, 31425/12 and 72474/12, the applicants 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 Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), and Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above).IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  The applicants in applications nos. 34900/08, 47003/08 and 6407/12, 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.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, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It however makes no award in respect of the applicant, in application no. 63545/11, who failed to respond to the Court’s invitation to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.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 pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 34900/08, 47003/08 and 6407/12 inadmissible; 3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 4.  Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 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 5 § 3 of the Convention(excessive length of pre-trial detention)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant nameDate of birthRepresentative name and locationPeriod of detentionLength of detentionOther complaints under well-established case-lawAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expensesper applicant(in euros)[1]   34900/0804/07/2008Aleksandr Vitalyevich Nakonechnyy23/03/1986 20/07/2004 to 08/08/20084 years and 20 days 2,500   47003/0806/09/2008Konstantin Vasilyevich Yemets31/10/1974 17/01/2006 to 12/10/2006 06/07/2007 to 27/03/2008 22/08/2008 to 21/08/20098 months and 26 days 8 months and 22 days 1 year 1,600   38999/0908/07/2009Yuriy Andreyevich Miroshnichenko20/08/1969Vladimir Vasilyevich SuntsovKharkiv09/04/2009 to 19/11/20123 years, 7 months and 11 daysArt. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - the proceedings lasted between 2009 and 2012 for 1 level of jurisdiction3,000   62281/0910/11/2009Vasyl Ivanovych Durakov21/08/1964 03/02/2006 to 18/05/2007 24/07/2007 to 04/04/2008 16/06/2009 to 12/11/20101 year, 3 months and 16 days 8 months and 12 days 1 year, 4 months and 28 days 2,700   17756/1112/03/2011Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Rubel25/06/1989 22/01/2009 to 30/12/2009 07/05/2010 to 29/07/2011 11/05/2012 to 19/06/201211 months and 9 days 1 year, 2 months and 23 days 1 month and 9 daysArt. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention:The domestic courts did not set time-limits for the applicant’s continued detention (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, § 54, 6 November 2008) Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: at least 3 years and 6 months at 2 levels of jurisdiction5,900   63545/1129/09/2011Mykola Trokhymovych Yakymchuk01/09/1957 19/04/2006 to 02/07/20126 years, 2 months and 14 days 0   4925/1214/01/2012Andrey Yuryevich Reznichenko20/08/1977 12/04/2010 to 05/12/20122 years, 7 months and 24 daysArt. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 2,200   6407/1214/12/2011Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Shtemenko07/12/1984 11/03/2010 to 02/12/2011 25/12/2012 to 04/06/20131 year, 8 months and 22 days 5 months and 11 days 1,400   31425/1213/12/2012Yevgeniy Malekovich Antonov02/09/1984 11/11/2011 to 21/05/20131 year, 6 months and 11 daysArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: lack of proper review proceedings during the trial stage.5,900 53655/1205/08/2012Dmytro Anatoliyovych Sheyko02/05/1979 18/06/2010 to 25/09/20122 years, 3 months and 8 days 1,400 72474/1226/10/2012Yuriy Borysovych Veremchuk17/04/1984Zoryana Oleksandrivna KyrylenkoLviv02/01/2012 to 20/07/20153 years, 6 months and 19 daysArt. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings: from 02/01/2012 at 1 level of jurisdiction5,900 [1]  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.