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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .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 SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 71897/17 and 8 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 Sokolov 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 denial of access to higher courts. The applicant in application no.   3159/19 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained principally of the denial of access to higher courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to their civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against them determined by a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21   February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; and Deweer v. Belgium , no.   6903/75, §§ 48-49, 27 February 1980). Furthermore, limitations will only be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they pursue a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued (see Célice v. France , no.   14166/09, § 33, 8 March 2012). These guarantees of effective access under Article   6 § 1 apply to appellate and cassation courts, where such courts exist (see, among other authorities, Maresti v. Croatia , no.   55759/07, § 33, 25   June 2009), including in administrative‑offence proceedings before appellate courts (see, for instance, Chernega and Others v. Ukraine , no. 74768/10, §§ 176-82, 18 June 2019). 8.     In the leading cases of Davran v.   Turkey (no.   18342/03, §§ 31-47, 3   November 2009) and Maresti (cited above, §§ 34-43), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In application no.   3159/19, the applicant submitted other complaints raising issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Gavrilov v. Ukraine,   no.   11691/06, § 36, 16   February 2017), 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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the denial of access to higher courts; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); 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 of the Convention (denial of access to higher courts) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Specific irregularity complained of Case-law Facts and relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     71897/17 23/09/2017 Dmytro Oleksandrovych SOKOLOV 1989   Dykyy Yuriy Olegovych Kyiv unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 24/05/2017, the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 16/05/2017 against the judgment of the Vyshgorodskyy District Court of Kyiv Region of 03/05/2017, convicting him, in his presence, of an administrative offence of drunk driving, as lodged out of time. The appellate court rejected the applicant’s request for extension of the applicable ten-day time-limit, which was based on the fact (and supported by the relevant documents) that he had received the full text of the contested judgment after having requested it on 10/05/2017, as not a valid reason for granting the requested extension. The appellate court noted that the applicant had attended the hearing of 03/05/2017, at which the contested judgment had been pronounced. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 250     3159/19 10/12/2018 Nataliya Illivna RADCHENKO 1963   Fokiy Bogdan Vasylyovych Chernivtsi unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 29/05/2018 (delivered to the applicant on 11/06/2018), the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred the applicant’s cassation appeal that she had lodged with that court initially on 13/04/2018, against the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 27/12/2017 partly changing the Solomyanskyy District Court’s judgment of 09/10/2015 convicting the applicant of fraud. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the full text of the appellate court’s decision of 27/12/2017 had been pronounced on 17/01/2018, according to the official note issued by the registry of the appellate court, was insufficient for the latter date to be taken as a starting point of the applicable three-month period for lodging a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court held that the relevant period had started to run on the date of the appellate court’s decision of 27/12/ 2017. According to Article 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012, cassation appeals must be lodged with the Supreme Court within three months from the “date of pronouncement” of the appellate court’s decision. Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 15/12/2011- 18/09/2018, 3 levels of jurisdiction Nechay v.   Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 1,950 250     19609/19 03/04/2019 Oleg Oleksandrovych ZAYCHENKO 1971       unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By decisions of 16/10/2018 and 10/12/2018, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal initially lodged on 02/10/2018 against the judgment of the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 17/08/2018 convicting him of breach of customs rules, as lodged out of time, reasoning that the applicant had attended the hearing of 17/08/2018 and had been informed of the contested judgment on that date. The appellate court dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had missed the time-limit for justifiable reason which was based on the fact that the full text of the contested judgment had been delivered to him only on 26/09/2018, after he and his lawyer had repeatedly, from 23/08/2018 onwards, requested the 1st instance court to provide it. The applicant submitted copies of the relevant requests and delivery note. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 -     44053/19 12/08/2019 Andriy Igorovych KUROCHKIN 1989       unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 22/05/2019, the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 11/05/2019 against the judgment of the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv of 23/04/2019, convicting him of an administrative offence of drunk driving, as lodged out of time. The appellate court rejected the applicant’s request for extension of the applicable ten-day time-limit until 11/05/2019, which was based on the fact that he had received the full text of the contested judgment only on 08/05/2019 when it had been published in the State Register of Court Decisions. The appellate court found that this fact was not a valid reason for granting the requested extension, since the applicant had attended the hearing of 23/04/2019 and had been informed of the contested judgment on that date. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500       49672/19 12/09/2019 Volodymyr Mykhaylovych RODCHUK 1984       unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 30/11/2018, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 17/09/2018 against the judgment of the Hordenkivskyi District Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk Region of 04/09/2018, convicting him of breach of customs rules, as lodged out of time and his request for extension of the applicable ten-day time-limit, which was based on the fact that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 12/09/2018 (which was supported by the applicant’s request of 06/09/2018 and relevant delivery note of 12/09/2018), as unsubstantiated. The appellate court held that that this was not a valid reason for granting the requested extension until 17/09/2018, noting that the applicant had been present at the hearing of 04/09/2018, at which the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment had been pronounced. On 19/03/2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.   1,500 -     49416/20 24/10/2020 Valeriy Gennadiyovych BABIN 1956   Markelov Vladyslav Sergiyovych Limassol unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 13/07/2020, the Donetsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 06/07/2020 against the judgment of the Prymorskyi District Court of Mariupol of 22/06/2020, convicting him, in his and his lawyer’s absence, of breach of customs rules, as lodged out of time and his request for extension of the applicable ten-day time-limit, which was based on the fact that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 26/06/2020 (which was supported by his lawyer’s request of 24/06/2020 and the relevant delivery note of 26/06/2020), as unsubstantiated. The appellate court held that that this was not a valid reason for granting the requested extension until 06/07/2020, noting that the applicant and his lawyer had been informed of the hearing of 22/06/2020, at which the contested judgment had been pronounced. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 250     1601/21 16/12/2020 Danylo Anatoliyovych MELNYK 1998       unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a final decision of 26/08/2020, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal in the administrative-offence proceedings lodged on 07/08/2020 against the judgment of the Boryspil Town Court of 20/07/2020 as lodged out of time, reasoning that the applicant and his lawyer had been informed of the judgement on the day it was pronounced, as they both had attended the hearing. The appellate court dismissed the arguments that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 07/08/2020, after he and his lawyer had repeatedly requested the first-instance court (on 27/07/2020 and 05/08/2020) to provide it. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 -     43541/21 20/08/2021 Roman Bogdanovych GALABUDA 1987   Dovgan Volodymyr Igorovych Lviv unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a final decision of 15/06/2021 in the administrative-offence proceedings concerning breach of traffic rules, the Lviv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 07/06/2021 against the judgment of the Zolochiv Town Court of the Lviv Region of 12/05/2021 as lodged out of time and his request for extension of the relevant ten-day time-limit (Article 294 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences), which was based on the fact that he had received the full text of the contested judgment on 27/05/2021 (supported by the relevant delivery note), as unsubstantiated. The appellate court held that this was not a valid reason for granting the requested extension, noting that the applicant had been present at the hearing on 12/05/2021. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 250     10000/23 08/02/2023 Dmytro Igorovych ANDREYCHENKO 1994   Chip Yaroslav Mykolayovych Dnipro unforeseeable and/or excessively formalistic application of the relevant procedural regulations Maresti v.   Croatia , no.   55759/07, §§   33-43, 25   June 2009 By a decision of 05/12/2022, the Dnipro Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal dated 18/10/2022 and sent by post on 20/10/2022 against the judgment of the Sofiyivskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region of 21/09/2022 terminating administrative-offence proceedings, in which the applicant was a victim, as lodged out of time. The appellate court reasoned that the applicant had attended the hearing of 21/09/2022 and had been informed of the introductory and operative parts of the contested judgment on that date. The appellate court dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had missed the time-limit for justifiable reason, which was based on the fact that the full text of the contested judgment had been delivered to him only on 17/10/2022, after his lawyer had repeatedly, from 27/09/2022 onwards, requested the 1st instance court to provide it. The applicant submitted copies of the relevant requests and email by which a copy of the contested judgment had been sent to him. There is no evidence indicating that the first-instance court fulfilled its obligation under Article 285 of the Code of Administrative Offences to provide the applicant with a copy of its judgment before the date on which the applicant actually received it.   1,500 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.