I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KANNA v. UKRAINE.
Information
- Judgment date: 2018-03-29
- Communication date: 2018-01-25
- Application number(s): 24751/10
- Country: UKR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-b, 6, 6-1
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
Right to a fair trial
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.752867
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Ivan Georgiyevich Kanna, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 May 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery.
On 21 May 2008 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended a number of times.
On 7 April 2010 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to, inter alia, ten years’ imprisonment.
On 6 October 2010 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the local court’s decision as to the applicant’s guilt and reduced the term of his imprisonment to eight years.
On 14 June 2011 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the ruling of 6 October 2010 and remitted the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration.
On 22 December 2011 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 7 April 2010 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh consideration.
It also ordered the applicant’s further detention.
No reasons for the applicant’s detention or a time-limit were set out in the decision of the court of appeal.
In the course of the retrial the applicant asked the court to change the preventive measure preventing him from absconding on the grounds that he had been detained in breach of reasonable time requirements and had had no reason to hide from the investigation.
On 20 February 2012 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk refused that application, having stated that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure.
On 17 December 2012 the Leninskyy District Court of Donetsk convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to, inter alia, ten years’ imprisonment.
On 28 May 2013 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the local court’s decision as to the applicant’s guilt and reduced the term of his imprisonment to eight years.
On 11 February 2014 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld, with slight amendments, the decision of the court of appeal.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, when quashing the sentence of the local court and remitting the case for a retrial on 22 December 2011, failed to provide reasons for its decision authorising his detention on remand, and set no time-limit on it.
The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.
Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the trial court refused his application for release without providing sufficient reasons.
Judgment
FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KONOROY AND GRYTA v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 40213/13 and 41168/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Konoroy and Gryta 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 8 March 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. 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 FACTS
3. 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. THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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 CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained 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 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. 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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. 14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv TigerstedtAndré Potocki
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List 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 introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
40213/13
11/06/2013
Anatoliy Ivanovych Konoroy
02/09/1945
02/06/2004
02/10/2008
20/02/2008
09/11/2012
3 years, 8 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4 years, 1 month and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
800
41168/17
27/05/2017
Bogdan Yaroslavovych Gryta
26/11/1967
17/03/2008
05/12/2016
8 years, 8 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
40213/13
11/06/2013
Anatoliy Ivanovych Konoroy
02/09/1945
02/06/2004
02/10/2008
20/02/2008
09/11/2012
3 years, 8 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
4 years, 1 month and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
800
41168/17
27/05/2017
Bogdan Yaroslavovych Gryta
26/11/1967
17/03/2008
05/12/2016
8 years, 8 months and 19 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.