CASE OF TAMAKULOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TAMAKULOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 20890/16 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 June 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tamakulova and Others 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: 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.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  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 applications admissible;     Holds that these applications 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 11 June 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]    20890/16 06/04/2016 Valentyna Oleksiyivna TAMAKULOVA 1954       01/10/2007   21/12/2015   8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction   500    19185/25 13/06/2025 Andriy Anatoliyovych VORONKO 1969       Proceedings no. 1 27/10/2016       Proceedings no. 2 03/01/2021       Proceedings no. 3 12/03/2021   Proceedings no. 1 23/04/2025       Proceedings no. 2 pending       Proceedings no. 3 pending   Proceedings no. 1 8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   Proceedings no. 2 More than 5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Proceedings no. 3 More than 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,000    29242/25 05/09/2025 Volodymyr Mykolayovych YASINSKYY 1960 Yurovskyy Dmytro Borysovych Kyiv 04/10/2021   pending   More than 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 25 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200    30675/25 25/09/2025 Gennadiy Anatoliyovych KRAVCHUK 1961   Boychenyuk Ivan Vasylyovych Kyiv 08/08/2018   15/05/2025 (received by the applicant on 26/05/2025) 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 8 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   900    32185/25 04/10/2025 Petro Mykolayovych KLYMENKO 1954 Blyakharska Yuliya Oleksandrivna Dnipro 06/03/2017   04/06/2025   8 year(s) and 3 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.