CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .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 } .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 } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s1A06AB9A { width:102.7%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2BE4053 { width:4.4%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s613A2BEA { width:8.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6D22E1A { width:11.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s764DA2EA { width:10.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s572D69F1 { width:8.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s92F99032 { width:6.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3C4D67B8 { width:35.96%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4AB2B1F6 { width:13.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .s1B96964 { width:4.4%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s78B3AE16 { width:8.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8B02CBF { width:11.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s228BF6B6 { width:10.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE04188A { width:8.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7F0B728 { width:6.74%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC212B7A { width:35.96%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s18718FD0 { width:13.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ALENGOZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 14500/25 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Alengoz 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 12 March 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 criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. 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 criminal 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v.   France [GC], no.   25444/94, §   67, ECHR   1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII). 8.     In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021) 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.     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, Bevz v. Ukraine , no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds 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 and Article   13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard;      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 2 April 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 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal 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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1]     14500/25 24/04/2025 Denis Viktorovych ALENGOZ 1986   Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna Odesa 20/11/2016   pending   More than 9   years and 3   months   1 level of jurisdiction   3,600     18188/25 30/05/2025 Oleg Olegovych MINKOVSKYY 1968   Ogorilko Yuriy Volodymyrovych Chervonograd 12/04/2017   pending   More than 8   years and 10   months and 8 days   3 levels of jurisdiction   1,800     18838/25 11/06/2025 Taras Yaroslavovych GRANAT 1982       16/09/2015   11/02/2025   9 years and 4   months and 27 days   3 levels of jurisdiction   1,800     20476/25 17/06/2025 Vitaliy Sergiyovych KIRIK 1986   Sydorchuk Kateryna Anatoliyivna Mykolayiv 07/10/2022   pending   More than 3   years and 4   months and 13 days   2 levels of jurisdiction   The proceedings in the present case commenced on 16/11/2010. On 06/10/2022 the Court had already found violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6-1 in view of excessive length of criminal proceedings ( Kryzhanovskyy and Others v. Ukraine , app. no. 16218/17 and others, 6 October 2022)   2,000     23310/25 17/07/2025 Maksym Viktorovych DROZDENKO 1975     11/03/2011   pending   More than 14   years and 11   months and 9 days   1 level of jurisdiction   7,200     23374/25 12/07/2025 Sergiy Grygorovych LYUBINETSKYY 1984   Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych Vinnytsa 16/11/2009   pending   15 years and 3   months   2 levels of jurisdiction   3,800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.