CASE OF KOBYLYANSKYY v. UKRAINE

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOBYLYANSKYY v. UKRAINE (Application no. 64361/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 June 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kobylyanskyy v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Andreas Zünd, President,  Vahe Grigoryan,  Sébastien Biancheri, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 August 2017. 2.  The applicant was represented by Ms K.O. Chuyeva, a lawyer practising in Odesa. 3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The applicant complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant 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 applicant did not have at his 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12.  The applicant submitted a complaint concerning the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement which also raises an issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in the case set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINT13.  The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement. Having regard to the facts of the case, the available material in the case file, and its findings above, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case, it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine that complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  Having regard to the fact that the applicant, having been invited to submit his just satisfaction claims, failed to do so in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, the Court makes no award. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, as well as the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention concerning the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remainder of the application;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Andreas Zünd  Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application 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) 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law 64361/17 23/08/2017 Oleksandr Mykhaylovych KOBYLYANSKYY 1980   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 25/06/2012   09/05/2023   10 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 15 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond  - the applicant has been under undertaking not to abscond from 25/06/2012 to 09/05/2023, that is for more than 10 years and 10 months (Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006; and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, § 59, 18 February 2010)