CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 3 November 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27672/25 Vitaliy Viktorovych CHAYKOVSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 24 February 2024 communicated on 17 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disruption in the examination of the applicant’s criminal case allegedly due to hostilities. In April 2019 the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s request for review of his case based on the Court’s findings in Sitnevskiy and   Chaykovskiy [1] v. Ukraine (nos. 48016/06 and 7817/07, 10 November 2016). Part of the applicant’s convictions was quashed and sent for retrial. Already in the proceedings in the Supreme Court, there was a question of access to case file and its restoration as it had been stored in the territories outside Government control. Due to the efforts made, the case file was partially restored and the case examined (see, Chaykovskyy v. Ukraine , no.   48879/19, §§ 34-45 and 102-3, 9 October 2025, not yet final). It appears, however, that after the remittal for retrial no hearings on the merits were held, and sometime after February 2022 the case file was lost, allegedly due to hostilities in the region where the newly assigned trial court was located. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the lengthy examination of his case and the eventual loss of the case file.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the prolonged failure to examine the applicant’s case? [1] The applicant’s last name in that case used the transliteration appropriate to his application, which was made in Russian. The applicant’s further applications, including the present one, were made in Ukrainian and his name was transliterated accordingly.