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 } .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 } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s974F4397 { margin-left:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .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 } .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 STROGUSH AND KROPACHEV v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 9673/25 and 11144/25)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Strogush and Kropachev 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 of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In application no.   9673/25, 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 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.     In application no.   9673/25, 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 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   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 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]     9673/25 19/03/2025 Roman Ivanovych STROGUSH 1986   Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony 02/03/2023 pending More than 2   year(s) and 10   month(s) and 20   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice starting from 27/05/2025 - 24-hour house arrest Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention: the applicant’s requests for an alternative preventive measure were examined with significant delays:   - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 03/03/2023 lodged on 06/03/2023 was examined on 11/04/2023 (39   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 26/04/2023 lodged on 01/05/2023 was examined on 29/05/2023 (28   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 30/05/2023 lodged on 01/06/2023 was examined on 22/06/2023 (23   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 22/09/2023 lodged on 22/09/2023 was examined on 19/10/2023 (30   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 31/10/2023 lodged on 02/11/2023 was examined on 27/11/2023 (25   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 29/11/2023 lodged on 01/12/2023 was examined on 08/01/2024 (40   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23/01/2024 lodged on 25/01/2024 was examined on 20/03/2024 (upon the applicant’s defendant’s request to withdraw an appeal) (55 days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 20/02/2024 lodged on 22/02/2024 was examined on 18/03/2024 (upon the applicant’s defendant’s request to leave the appeal without consideration) (27   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 29/02/2024 lodged on 01/03/2024 was examined on 04/04/2024 (35   days); - the applicant’s appeals against the decisions of 02/05/2024 lodged on 07/05/2024 examined on 12/06/2024 and 13/11/2024 respectively (36   days and 191 days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 24/06/2024 lodged on 26/06/2024 was examined on 07/10/2025 (1   year, 5 months, 12 days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25/06/2024 lodged on 26/06/2024 was examined on 24/07/2024 (28   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 05/11/2024 lodged on 06/11/2024 was examined on 26/12/2024 (51   days); - the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 03/02/2025 lodged on 04/02/2025 was examined on 19/03/2025 (43   days) (see Kharchenko v.   Ukraine , no. 40107/02, §§   84-87, 10   February 2011),   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - 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) 2,400 250     11144/25 04/04/2025 Vitaliy Valeriyovych KROPACHEV 1973   Popkov Pavlo Oleksandrovych Kyiv 17/05/2024 to 20/11/2025 1 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 4   day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts         1,000 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.