CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .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 RIDKODUBSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 16317/24 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ridkodubskyy 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 18 December 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 their pre-trial detention. Some applicants 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 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 7.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 8.     In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10   February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 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 length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised 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, Ignatov , cited above), 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   5   §   3 of the   Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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 22 January 2026, 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Length of detention Specific defects House arrest Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     16317/24 15/05/2024 Ruslan Anatoliyovych RIDKODUBSKYY 1973   Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne 25/04/2018 to 03/04/2024 5 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 10   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand;   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts 03/04/2024 - 26/12/2024 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 25/04/2018 - pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction (see   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 (see   Nechay v.   Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§   67-79, 1 July 2021)   3,900 250     4345/25 Error! No document variable supplied. 01/02/2025 Andriy Volodymyrovych LOGACHOV 1997   Kulbach Sergiy Oleksandrovych Limoges 20/03/2022 to 21/10/2024 2 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 2   day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 20/03/2022 - pending, 1   level of jurisdiction (see   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 - (see   Nechay v.   Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§   67-79, 1 July 2021) 2,200 250     5430/25 10/02/2025 Oleksiy Vitaliyovych TANDYR 1982   Boychenyuk Ivan Vasylyovych Kyiv 26/05/2023 pending More than 2   year(s) and 6   month(s) and 8   day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –   (i) decision of 23/05/2024, appeal lodged on 27/05/2024, withdrawn upon the request on 25/07/2024;   (ii) decision of 10/10/2024, appeal lodged on 14/10/2024, examined on 11/11/2024,   and (iii) decision of 17/01/2025, appeal lodged on 24/01/2025, examined on 17/02/2025 ( Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   84-87, 10   February   2011),   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art 5 § 3 (see   Tymoshenko v.   Ukraine , no.   49872/11, §§   286-87, 30   April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no. 28718/09, §   55, 5 March 2015)   2,100 250     6268/25 14/02/2025 Yevgeniy Yuriyovych GONCHARENKO 1982   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 23/01/2020 to 15/06/2022   19/12/2023 to 20/05/2025 2 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 24   day(s)   1 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 2   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice between 10/04/2025 and 20/05/2025 24-hour house arrest, and from 20/05/2025 nighttime arrest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – (i) decision of 12/02/2024, appeal lodged on 13/02/2024, examined on 28/05/2024, and (ii) decision of 08/04/2024, appeal lodged on 08/04/2024, examined on 13/05/2024 ( Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no.   40107/02, §§   84-87, 10   February   2011),   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art 5 § 3 (see   Tymoshenko v.   Ukraine , no.   49872/11, §§   286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine , no.   28718/09, §   55, 5 March 2015)   3,100 250     6450/25 17/02/2025 Sergiy Anatoliyovych REZHENKO 1973       19/12/2022 to 31/07/2025 2 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 13   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand       1,700 -     6911/25 18/02/2025 Sergiy Gennadiyovych SELYUTIN 1979   Orez Valentyn Pavlovych Odesa 12/11/2017 to 19/02/2025 7 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 8   day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 12/11/2017 - pending, 2   levels of jurisdiction (see   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 - (see   Nechay v.   Ukraine , no.   15360/10, §§   67-79, 1 July 2021)     3,900 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.