I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SIRENKO v. UKRAINE.


  • Judgment date: 2015-10-15
  • Communication date: 2014-02-01
  • Application number(s): 9078/14
  • Country:   UKR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-b, 11, 11-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.522808
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant claims to have been taking part in the on-going protests in central Kyiv since 29 November 2013.
He states that he was beaten up by the special police units during the violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November 2013.
According to the medical documents submitted together with the request, the applicant had multiple bruises on his limbs dated 30 November 2013.
Subsequently, he was placed in police custody for several hours, for which no reason has been given.
He complains in this respect of a violation of Articles 3, 5, 11 and 13 of the Convention.




(Application no.



15 October 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Urbán v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
The case originated in an application (no. 60214/13) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Béla Urbán (“the applicant”), on 17 September 2013. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Karakas, a lawyer practising in Szeghalom. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3. On 8 January 2015 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. THE FACTS
The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zsámbék. 5. The applicant lodged a compensation claim for medical negligence against a hospital on 10 October 2006. 6. The Pest Central District Court dismissed the action. 7. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first‐instance decision on 29 November 2011. 8. The applicant lodged a petition for review. The Kúria upheld the decision on 13 March 2013. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 May 2013. THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. The Government contested that argument. 11. The period to be taken into consideration began on 10 October 2006 and ended on 30 May 2013. It thus lasted almost six years and eight months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 12. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. 14. Relying on Article 41, the applicant claimed 3,740 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 15. The Government contested these claims. 16. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him EUR 1,350 under that head. 17. The applicant also claimed EUR 8,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 18. The Government contested this claim. 19. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 for all costs incurred. 20. 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,
Declares the length complaint admissible;

Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,350 (one thousand three hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 October 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. André WampachElisabeth SteinerDeputy RegistrarPresident