CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B15FBF9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19756/24 Dmytro Borysovych YUROVSKYY against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4   June 2024, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under 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 were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints raised by the applicant under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the excessive length of the civil proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings at stake had been suspended until another case was resolved and the applicant did not claim that the suspension had been unreasonable. Thus, the length of the proceedings, which lasted for about two years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction (see the appended table), cannot be considered excessive. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints raised under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. However, having regard to the conclusions which it has reached above, the Court finds that this complaint must also be rejected as being manifestly ill ‑ founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and   Article   13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 19756/24 04/06/2024 Dmytro Borysovych YUROVSKYY 1978   05/02/2016 15/12/2022   03/10/2016 02/10/2024   2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction