CASE OF BURKOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BURKOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 30753/24 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Burkovskyy 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 20 November 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. 4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  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 CONVENTION6.  The applicants complained 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. 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 other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII). 8.  In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  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. 10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 11.  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 CONVENTION12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings;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 11 December 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 criminal 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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]    30753/24 08/10/2024 Maksym Olegovych BURKOVSKYY 1986   Kovalyukh Vasyl Mykolayovych Bakhmach 06/07/2017   10/06/2024   6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    34612/24 08/11/2024  ROST AGRO, TOV 2000   Svidlo Yegor Volodymyrovych Kyiv 23/08/2017   12/07/2024   6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    37414/24 12/12/2024 Nataliya Vladislavovna PONOMAR 1973   Kulakov Oleg Volodymyrovych Dnipro 11/08/2017   15/08/2024   7 year(s) and 5 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    4506/25 27/01/2025 Viktor Viktorovych SHAKHOV 1984   Poznyak Oleksandr Mykolayovych Kyiv 26/08/2016   pending   More than 9 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   3,600    4753/25 29/01/2025 Petro Vasylyovych FURMAN 1949       23/03/2015   04/12/2024   9 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,400    13465/25 07/04/2025 Roman Ivanovych KISHKO 1964       23/01/2015   22/01/2025   10 year(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,400     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.