CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s661BB74A { height:163.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ZLAGODA, TOV AND SLOBODENYUK v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 4735/22 and 4896/22)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 August 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Zlagoda, TOV and Slobodenyuk v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     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 applicants were represented by Mr Dmytro Viktorovych Yagunov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 3.     The Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. THE LAW   JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     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 CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally 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.     In application no. 4735/22 the applicant company raised complaints about excessive length of more than twenty sets of proceedings. All of them lasted no less than four years and five months for one level of jurisdiction with the longest set of proceedings of more than six years and three months (see appended table). 10.     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. 11.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and of Article   13 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In application no.   4735/22, the applicant company also raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about excessive length of four sets of proceedings (proceedings nos. 500/3032/18, 500/3078/18, 500/3079/18 and 500/3087/18). They all lasted in total between three years and eleven months and four years and seven months before three levels of jurisdiction. 14.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the   light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no. 4735/22 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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 complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings as indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in that regard admissible, and the   remainder of application no.   4735/22 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings indicated in the appended table and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law; Holds (a)   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; (b)   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 28 August 2025, 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/registration   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]     4735/22 14/01/2022 ZLAGODA, TOV 2001   I. 24/04/2018 25/10/2023         II. Additional 20 sets of the civil proceedings concerning claims to terminate different sales and lease agreements initiated by the applicant company in in Izmayil Town and District Court of Odesa region. The proceedings were initiated in May-June 2018. I. 09/01/2023 pending         II. These sets of the proceedings were terminated between November 2022 and December 2023 by a first instance court decision. I. More than 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   II. The length of the proceedings amounted to over four years and five months for 1 level of jurisdiction (the shortest set). In three cases the proceedings included a second instance, lasting for around 5 years each.   2,300     4896/22 13/01/2022 Sergiy Andriyovych SLOBODENYUK 1976   24/04/2018 25/10/2023   09/01/2023 pending   More than 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.