CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .sE72AEBE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SEMENOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 9200/20 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 November 2025         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Semenov and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 October 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 Ukrainian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     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 applicant in application no.   9200/20 raised additional complaints under the Convention provisions. 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 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no.   9200/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     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.   9200/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible,   and the remainder of application no.   9200/20 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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 (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 13 November 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   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]     9200/20 08/02/2020 Vadym Vyacheslavovych SEMENOV 1977   Sagaydak Andriy Vasylyovych Dnipro 23/04/2015   29/03/2021   5 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 7   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500     6167/24 12/02/2024 Ivanna Pavlivna KYZYMCHUK 1972   Yurovskyy Dmytro Borysovych Kyiv 09/12/2020   pending   More than 4   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 24   day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     4945/25 30/01/2025 Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO 1949       02/10/2019   pending   More than 6   year(s) and 1 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction 500     7634/25 04/03/2025 Maryana Vasylivna KONIZHAY 1975   Konizhay Roman Salzburg 16/07/2012   05/11/2024   12 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 21   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction 4,700     7750/25 24/02/2025 Yuriy Anatoliyovych MAKSYOM 1979   Akhramovych Yan Igorovych Kyiv 13/01/2022   20/02/2025   3 year(s) and 1   month(s) and 8   day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction   Appeal proceedings initiated by the applicant following the decision of 20/02/2025, ended with the final decision of 30/05/2025 500     8006/25 07/03/2025 Oleksandr Pavlovych KORNIYETS 1972   Svitlana Valeriyivna KORNIYETS 1971 Fedosin Artem Viktorovych Puddletown 03/12/2012 05/12/2018   22/12/2016 24/10/2024 (the final decision was received by the applicants on 13/11/2024) 9 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 10   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,400     10133/25 15/03/2025 Karina Sergiyivna ZABOLOTNA 1996   Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych Kyiv 17/12/2020   pending   More than 4   year(s) and 9   month(s) and 16   day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200     10666/25 20/03/2025 Oleg Oleksandrovych KOSTYUK 1965       Roman Yaroslavovych SMETANSKYY 1967       01/07/2003 27/09/2007 04/05/2012         25/05/2005 27/09/2007 04/05/2012 01/02/2007 06/11/2009 20/12/2024         01/02/2007 06/11/2009 20/12/2024   18   year(s) and 3   month(s) and 29   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   16   year(s)   and 5   month(s) and 5   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction 5,000     10771/25 25/03/2025 Volodymyr Yakovych BOYCHUK 1957       06/06/2014   28/11/2024   10 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 23   day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400   10892/25 21/03/2025 Mykola Ivanovych KUROCHKA 1965   Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych Kyiv 15/12/2020   pending   More than 4   year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500   11960/25 01/04/2025 Leonid Mykolayovych SOKOLOVSKYY 1960   Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych Kyiv 14/12/2021   30/04/2025   3 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 17   day(s)   1 level(s) of jurisdiction 900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.