Background
Fourteen Ukrainian nationals lodged separate applications with the European Court of Human Rights between 2016 and 2025, each complaining that criminal proceedings against them had dragged on for an unreasonable length of time. The proceedings spanned a wide range of durations — from just over five years to more than twelve years — and a number of cases remained pending before domestic courts at the time the Court deliberated. The applicants also alleged that Ukrainian law offered no effective domestic remedy through which they could challenge or obtain redress for such delays.
The Court joined the fourteen applications for examination in a single judgment, given their substantially identical subject matter. The case follows a well-established line of Ukrainian delay cases, with the Court having already identified a systemic problem in the leading judgment Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) and awarded compensation in related proceedings such as Bevz v. Ukraine (no. 7307/05, 18 June 2009).
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Section Committee, sitting unanimously, held that each application disclosed a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention — which guarantees the right to a hearing within a reasonable time — and of Article 13, which requires that domestic law provide an effective remedy for Convention violations. Applying the criteria established in Pélissier and Sassi v. France and Frydlender v. France (complexity of the case, conduct of the parties and authorities, and what was at stake), the Court found no fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings in any of the fourteen cases.
The Court further held that Ukraine must pay each applicant just satisfaction under Article 41, with awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage ranging from €500 to €4,800 depending on the length and circumstances of each set of proceedings. Payment is due within three months of the judgment becoming final, with default interest at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points thereafter.
Key Takeaways
- Ukraine violated Article 6 § 1 in all fourteen cases by failing to conclude — or meaningfully advance — criminal proceedings within a reasonable time, with delays ranging from approximately five to over twelve years.
- Ukraine also violated Article 13 in each case because domestic law provided no effective remedy enabling applicants to accelerate proceedings or obtain redress for undue delay.
- The judgment applies the well-established Nechay v. Ukraine precedent, confirming that excessive criminal-trial delay remains a systemic problem in Ukraine requiring structural redress.
- Just satisfaction awards were calibrated to the length of delay and number of jurisdictional levels, ranging from €500 (8 years, 4 levels, concluded) to €4,800 (over 10–12 years, pending, 1–2 levels).
Why It Matters
This judgment is one of a long series in which the Court has found Ukraine in systemic breach of the reasonable-time guarantee in criminal matters. By joining fourteen applications and deciding them on a streamlined Committee procedure, the Court signals that the violation is repetitive and well-established, placing pressure on Ukraine to implement general measures — such as introducing an effective domestic acceleratory or compensatory remedy — rather than litigating each case individually in Strasbourg.
For practitioners, the decision reinforces that the absence of any domestic mechanism to challenge or remedy criminal-trial delay is itself a freestanding Convention violation under Article 13, independent of the underlying Article 6 breach. States hosting large backlogs of criminal cases should take note that both the delay and the lack of a remedy are independently actionable before the Court.