Background
The European Court of Human Rights jointly examined three applications against Ukraine brought by Yan Volodymyrovych Golovanov, Volodymyr Mykolayovych Zharkovskyy, and Oleksandr Vasylyovych Kravchuk. They alleged that the duration of their criminal proceedings violated the reasonable-time requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that domestic law provided no effective remedy, contrary to Article 13.
Golovanov’s proceedings had been pending at one level of jurisdiction for more than four years and eight months; Zharkovskyy’s had been pending at one level for more than ten years and nine months; and Kravchuk’s lasted approximately ten years and ten months across three levels of jurisdiction. Golovanov also raised additional Convention complaints.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously declared the complaints about delay and the absence of an effective domestic remedy admissible. Applying the criteria of complexity, the parties’ conduct, the authorities’ conduct, and what was at stake, it found no fact or argument capable of justifying the proceedings’ overall duration. The delays were therefore excessive and breached Article 6 § 1.
The Court also held that the applicants lacked an effective remedy for those delays, in breach of Article 13. It rejected Golovanov’s remaining complaints as inadmissible and awarded Golovanov €1,500, Zharkovskyy €4,800, and Kravchuk €3,000 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plus any chargeable tax.
Key Takeaways
- Criminal proceedings lasting from more than four years and eight months to nearly eleven years were not completed within a reasonable time.
- Ukraine violated Article 13 because the applicants had no effective domestic remedy for the excessive delays.
- The Court rejected the additional complaints in application no. 11274/25 because they failed the Convention’s admissibility requirements or disclosed no appearance of a violation.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s established approach to prolonged criminal proceedings in Ukraine: absent case-specific justification, substantial delay may violate Article 6 § 1, while the lack of a mechanism capable of addressing that delay may separately violate Article 13.
It also illustrates that the Court assesses each category of complaint independently. The successful reasonable-time and effective-remedy claims did not make Golovanov’s other Convention complaints admissible.