I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in STOYETSKYY v. UKRAINE.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-02-10
- Communication date: 2021-03-19
- Application number(s): 51842/15
- Country: UKR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 6, 6-1, 6-2
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.927146
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Published on 6 April 2021 The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about being arrested without prior court decision in breach of the requirements of domestic law and about the authorities’ failure to bring him promptly to a court.
It furthermore concerns his allegation under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the failure of the Court of Appeal to examine the lawfulness of his arrest and detention.
On 25 March 2015 at 12.20 pm the applicant, Deputy Head of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine at the material time, was arrested during the session of the Government of Ukraine in the context of the investigation into extortion and embezzlement, which had previously been initiated on 23 March 2015.
The relevant arrest report indicated that the applicant was arrested whilst committing a crime or attempting to commit one.
It did not indicate more details explaining the reasons for the applicant’s arrest.
On 28 March 2015 at 13.00 pm the applicant was brought before the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court which ordered the applicant’s detention at 13.10 pm.
The court also ruled that the applicant could be released from detention on payment of bail.
The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia, that his arrest had been effected without prior court decision and that he had been brought to a court after the expiry of the seventy-two hours’ time limit allowing to detain a suspect without court decision, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine.
On 9 April 2015 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s detention.
The Court of Appeal did not address the applicant’s grievances regarding the lawfulness of his arrest and detention.
In April 2015 the applicant was eventually released on bail.
Judgment
FOURTH SECTIONCASE OF KILCHES v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 51683/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kilches v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 September 2019. 2. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 ...”
6. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7. In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 9. The Court recognises that the delay in the civil proceedings as well as in the guardianship proceedings was to a large part caused by the defendant’s conduct. In this regard, the Court has held that even if the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the conduct of a respondent, the dilatory methods used by one of the parties do not relieve them of their obligation to ensure that the proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (see Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010; and Kartcheva and Chtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006). The Government could not provide sufficient explanations for the fact that it took the Vienna Inner City District Court three years in the guardianship proceedings to hold an initial hearing of the defendant. From the appointment of a temporary guardian for urgent matters it took another two years for the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien) to resume the civil proceedings. Despite the fact that the applicant has contributed to a certain extent to the delay in the civil proceedings by lodging requests for an extension of time limits and by agreeing to adjourn the hearing for settlement talks, the Court notes that the regional court in the civil proceedings took more than six months to issue a decision on the defendant’s default to pay an advance on costs for the expert report she had requested herself. Overall, the Government’s submissions could not justify the length of the proceedings, which are still pending in the first instance after more than nine years. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Rambauske, cited above, §§ 16 and 32) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. This amount takes into account the applicant’s contribution to the delay. 13. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Type of procedure
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
51683/19
25/09/2019
Ralph KILCHES
1974
20/09/2012
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 4 month(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
civil
8,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KILCHES v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 51683/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kilches v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 September 2019. 2. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 ...”
6. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7. In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 9. The Court recognises that the delay in the civil proceedings as well as in the guardianship proceedings was to a large part caused by the defendant’s conduct. In this regard, the Court has held that even if the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the conduct of a respondent, the dilatory methods used by one of the parties do not relieve them of their obligation to ensure that the proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (see Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010; and Kartcheva and Chtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006). The Government could not provide sufficient explanations for the fact that it took the Vienna Inner City District Court three years in the guardianship proceedings to hold an initial hearing of the defendant. From the appointment of a temporary guardian for urgent matters it took another two years for the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien) to resume the civil proceedings. Despite the fact that the applicant has contributed to a certain extent to the delay in the civil proceedings by lodging requests for an extension of time limits and by agreeing to adjourn the hearing for settlement talks, the Court notes that the regional court in the civil proceedings took more than six months to issue a decision on the defendant’s default to pay an advance on costs for the expert report she had requested herself. Overall, the Government’s submissions could not justify the length of the proceedings, which are still pending in the first instance after more than nine years. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Rambauske, cited above, §§ 16 and 32) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. This amount takes into account the applicant’s contribution to the delay. 13. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Type of procedure
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
51683/19
25/09/2019
Ralph KILCHES
1974
20/09/2012
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 4 month(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
civil
8,400
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Type of procedure
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
51683/19
25/09/2019
Ralph KILCHES
1974
20/09/2012
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 4 month(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
civil
8,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.