CASE OF KOSTYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

      FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOSTYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 31762/19 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kostyuk and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Andreas Zünd, President,  Diana Sârcu,  Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025, 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. THE LAW  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil 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. 6.  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7.  In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30 November 2006), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 9.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings as indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant /household (in euros)[1]    31762/19 04/07/2019 Oleg Oleksandrovych KOSTYUK 1965     02/02/2017   13/02/2023   6 year(s) and 12 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,800    15219/24 07/05/2024 Household Oksana Ivanivna MATSYURA 1982 Ivan Grygorovych MATSYURA 1952   Mukan Ivan Vasylyovych Tysovytsya 30/05/2006   15/03/2024   17 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   9,000    31143/24 18/10/2024 Svitlana Ivanivna STELMASHCHUK 1971   Ogorodnyk Ivanna Igorivna Lviv 10/10/2017   04/06/2024 (received by the applicant on 28/06/2024) 6 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    1532/25 26/12/2024 Avgustyn Gustavovych PETROTSI 1965   Bukhtoyarova alias Andreykovych Oksana Vasylivna Uzhgorod 25/12/2017   28/08/2024   6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    3516/25 11/01/2025 Mykola Ivanovych KALCHENKO 1972       13/07/2022   pending   More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 9 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    5709/25 08/02/2025 Nina Oleksandrivna OSTROVSKA 1950   Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych Kyiv 10/12/2021   pending   More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.