Quick answer
In Merit v. Ukraine (Application no. 66561/01, judgment of 30 March 2004), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1, and that Ukrainian law offered no effective remedy by which he could complain about that delay, in breach of Article 13.
Background and facts
The applicant, an Israeli national, became the subject of criminal proceedings in Ukraine that dragged on for years without a final resolution. He complained that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time and that there was no mechanism in Ukrainian law that would have allowed him to obtain redress or to speed up the case.
The Court’s reasoning
Article 6 § 1 — reasonable time
The Court reiterated that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is assessed in the light of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant. Examining the overall duration and the periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities, the Court concluded that the ‘reasonable time’ requirement had not been satisfied.
Article 13 — effective remedy
The Court found that at the material time Ukrainian law did not provide any effective remedy — whether preventive (to accelerate the proceedings) or compensatory (to obtain redress for the delay) — in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 13.
The judgment
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and a violation of Article 13, and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Why this case matters
Merit is an early and frequently cited authority on two recurring problems in the Ukrainian justice system: excessively long proceedings and the absence of a domestic remedy to address them. The combination of an Article 6 § 1 length finding with an Article 13 finding foreshadowed the Court’s later insistence that States create effective national remedies for delay.
What this means for applicants
- Delay itself can breach the Convention. Proceedings that drag on unreasonably violate Article 6 § 1, independently of the outcome.
- The State’s conduct is decisive. Periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities weigh heavily; delays caused by the applicant do not.
- A remedy for delay is required. The absence of any effective way to speed up a case or obtain compensation for delay breaches Article 13.
- Keep a chronology. Documenting each period of inactivity is essential to a length-of-proceedings complaint.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Merit v. Ukraine decide?
That the criminal proceedings against the applicant had lasted an unreasonably long time in breach of Article 6 § 1, and that there was no effective domestic remedy for that delay, in breach of Article 13.
How does the Court assess whether proceedings were too long?
By reference to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant.
What does Article 13 require in length cases?
An effective national remedy — either to accelerate the proceedings or to provide compensation for the delay.
How much was awarded?
EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
Why is the case still cited?
It is a leading early authority on excessive length of proceedings in Ukraine and on the need for an effective domestic remedy for delay.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
- Străin and Others v. Romania
- Brumărescu v. Romania
- Rotaru v. Romania
- Burmych and Others v. Ukraine
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.