Case of European Court of Human Rights, October 17, 2019 (case KOPYTETS AND SHTOPKO v. UKRAINE)

Defense:UKRAINE
Resolution Date:October 17, 2019
SUMMARY

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 ... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF KOPYTETS AND SHTOPKO v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 9706/19 and 9709/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 October 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kopytets and Shtopko v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

André Potocki, President,Ganna Yudkivska,Yonko Grozev, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 26 September 2019,

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 Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

    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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 9709/19 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

    THE LAW

  5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL