CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sCB95FA7E { width:189.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE820B6F2 { margin-left:28.1pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24231/14 Tetyana Oleksandrivna DYAK against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24   May   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2014, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the alleged excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In particular, the Court notes that the Government informed it about their inability to provide detailed information since the case-file was stored in the part of Donetsk region which was not controlled by the Government. The Government also submitted that from the documents provided by the applicant it was impossible to determine the reasons for the prolonged consideration of this case. The Court observes that the applicant has presented no evidence that between 2003 and 2013 there were any delays in her case attributable to the Respondent State. Although the proceedings were initiated in 2003, the applicant provided copies of only three decisions of the domestic courts taken in her case, all of which were delivered in 2013. It is known that postal services do not operate on the territory where the applicant lives (see, Tsezar and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 73590/14 and 6   others, § 9, 13 February 2018) and all attempts by the Court to reach the applicant by other means (telephone and electronic mail) and to receive the missing information have been to no avail. The Court further notes that the applicant in this case appears to be in a   position to provide the necessary information, contrary to the Government. Since the proceedings before the Court are adversarial in nature, it is for the parties – that is, the applicant and the respondent Government – to substantiate their factual arguments (by providing the Court with the necessary factual evidence) and also their legal arguments. However, the applicant has failed submit relevant documents to show that there were delays in the proceedings from 2003 until 2013 and that they were attributable to the State. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and   13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 24231/14 18/03/2014 Tetyana Oleksandrivna Dyak 16/03/1958 19/02/2003   11/09/2013   10 years, 6 months and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction