CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 8 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 November 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27388/24 Oleksandr Mykolayovych PYATAK against Ukraine lodged on 19 August 2024 communicated on 8 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly excessive length of the ongoing administrative proceedings. The applicant, who has served in the Armed Forces since 3 April 2022, challenged, in October 2023, his military unit command’s failure to consider his request for discharge from military service. He sought discharge in order to take care of his 88-year-old grandmother who, according to her medical file, requires constant care. The applicant claims that he is her sole carer and, therefore, is entitled by law to be discharged from military service. In December 2023 the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court initiated the proceedings and decided to hear the case in abridged procedure. The case is still pending before that court. Following the applicant’s requests to expedite the proceedings, in April 2024, the court informed him that it was facing a heavy workload. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the length of the proceedings. He also complains, mainly under Article 13 of the Convention, that no effective domestic remedy is available in that regard.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 2. If so, is the length of the proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (compare, for instance, Q and R v. Slovenia , no. 19938/20, §§ 75-83, 8 February 2022)? 3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see, Karnaushenko v. Ukraine , no. 23853/02, §§ 65-66, 30 November 2006)?