CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 février 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sA79D7CC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9C40A127 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9078A711 { width:11.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s40F4C625 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s46945B1C { width:7.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sF46D03BC { width:4.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90114CF2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3FD17360 { width:3.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB92302FC { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s9C6224B1 { margin-left:34pt; text-indent:-17pt; list-style-position:outside } .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 } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD3C5A1EB { width:132.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MOGYLA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 1129/18 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mogyla 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 5 February 2026, 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 Under Article 6 of the Convention that their access to a court had been restricted. In application no.   1129/18, the applicant 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 limitations on access to a court. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court – that is the right to institute proceedings before the courts in civil matters – constitutes an element which is inherent in the right set out in Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual 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; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14   June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v.   Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017). 8.     In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§   52-67, ECHR   2001‑VI); Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7   June 2007); Ciorap v.   Moldova (no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19   June 2007); and Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008), 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 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.   1129/18, the applicant 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 case 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, Kuzmenko, cited above, § 41), 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 limitations on access to a court;      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   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;   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 26 February 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (limitations on access to a court) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration   Representative’s name and location Key issue impairing access to a court 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]     1129/18 21/12/2017 Vadym Mykolayovych MOGYLA 1986       disagreement between different courts regarding jurisdiction Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v.   Ukraine , no.   37878/02, §§   51-53, 28   February 2008 Following several reconsiderations of the applicant’s administrative claim of 24/11/2008 challenging a local council’s refusal to allocate him a plot of land, by a decision of 26/01/2011, the Higher Administrative Court confirmed that it should be examined within administrative proceedings. Although on 30/09/2014, in the second round of consideration, the Higher Administrative Court remitted the case to the first-instance administrative court for a new consideration again, on 21/06/2017 it ruled that the claim fell to be examined in civil proceedings and terminated the case. Consequently, the applicant’s claim was not determined on the merits. Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - 24/11/2008 - 21/06/2017, 3 levels of jurisdiction (see Karnaushenko v.   Ukraine , no.   23853/02, 30   November 2006),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings - (see Karnaushenko v.   Ukraine , no.   23853/02, 30   November 2006) 2,300 -     50410/18 09/01/2019 Petro Ivanovych STETSENKO 1974       prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aid Kreuz v.   Poland , no.   28249/95, §§   52-67, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova , no.   32268/02, §§   31-36, 7   June 2007 By a ruling of 21/06/2018, upheld by the Supreme Court on 17/09/2018, in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim regarding a local court’s refusal to grant him access to a case file relating to his property, the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal rejected his request for a full or partial exemption from, or a deferral of, payment of approximately 34 euros (EUR) in court fees on the basis of his alleged lack of funds. In support of his request, he submitted official tax certificates showing his family’s monthly income of approximately EUR   139, which was significantly lower than the applicable minimum family subsistence level. The Court of Appeal held that the applicant had “failed to provide relevant evidence to prove his allegedly difficult financial situation”, without providing any further explanation.   1,500 -     34853/24 08/11/2024 FIRMA SVITLANA, TOV 1996   Pleskach Vyacheslav Yuriyovych Gozhuly prohibitive cost of the proceedings and/or unavailability of legal aid Kreuz v.   Poland , no.   28249/95, §§   52-67, ECHR 2001-VI, Malahov v. Moldova , no.   32268/02, §§   31-36, 7   June 2007, Teltronic-CATV v.   Poland , no. 48140/99, §§   50-64, 10   January 2006, Nalbant and Others v.   Turkey , no.   59914/16, §§   32-47, 3   May 2022 By a decision of 26/07/2024 in commercial proceedings concerning registration of property, the Poltava Regional Commercial Court dismissed the applicant company’s request for exemption or deferral of the court fee of 27,252 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (approx. EUR   650) based on its alleged lack of funds (income or assets), in support of which it provided copies of its financial reports and bank statements. The court reasoned that pursuant to Article   8 of the Court Fee Act only individuals could be released from the obligation to pay court fees, but not legal entities. On 31/07/2024 the court returned the claim for failure to pay the court fee. By a decision of 12/08/2024, the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s request for deferral of the appellate court fee of UAH 2,422 (approx. EUR 60) with the same reasoning. On   11/09/2024 the appellate court returned the applicant company’s appeal against the decision of 26/07/2024 for failure to pay the appellate court fee. On 20/09/2024 the Supreme Court refused to open the cassation proceedings, essentially upholding the reasoning of the appellate court.   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.