CASE OF SHKUROPATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SHKUROPATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 9085/24 and 3 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 April 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shkuropatskyy 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 26 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE1.  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 FACTS3.  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 civil 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 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. 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.  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. 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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS12.  In application no. 9085/25, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 2 of the Convention concerning allegedly ineffective investigation of a traffic accident. 13.  The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  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 in that regard admissible, and the remainder of application no. 9085/25 inadmissible;     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  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;  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 16 April 2026, 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 (in euros)[1]    9085/24 29/02/2024 Anton Yevgenovych SHKUROPATSKYY 1991   Pogibko Oleksandr Olegovych Odesa 25/11/2021   pending   More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction   800    6025/25 14/02/2025 Anatoliy Anatoliyovych GOVORUKHA 1972   Serdyuk Roman Viktorovych Prosyana 16/03/2016   16/10/2024   8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,300    11089/25 07/04/2025 Yevgeniya Valeriyivnna PANKINA 1986       02/04/2018   09/12/2024   6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    14768/25 10/04/2025 Volodymyr Anatoliyovych SHYLIN 1969         13/01/2022   16/04/2025   3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 4 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.