CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s61681B4B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 5 January 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 55140/19 Mykola Vasylyovych POLKOVNIKOV against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications mainly concern the applicants’ complaints, under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, that domestic courts failed to sufficiently reason their decisions adopted in the applicants’ cases. Application no. 55140/19 Polkovnikov An electricity company (“the company”) drew up a report about a breach of electricity consumption rules by the applicant, namely electricity consumption through a hidden cable and outlet not connected to the electricity meter (“the Company Report”), and brought court proceedings seeking damages for unlawful consumption of electricity. The applicant submitted to the first-instance court a report of the State Energy Supervision Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate Report”) which found that (i) there were indications that the unmetered outlet and consumption of electricity was due to incorrect installation of an electric meter by the company back in 2013 when it had moved the meter from the building’s common areas to the applicant’s flat, (ii) the Company Report had not reliably established the applicant’s fault, (iii) company inspectors had never found the hidden cable and had fixed the problem by moving the meter outside the flat into common areas of the building, where, as the Company Report noted, it “was supposed to be” in the first place pursuant to the project documentation. The applicant submitted similar statements of the National Commission for Regulation of Energy and Utilities and of the Ministry of Energy. The first-instance court, after holding a hearing with the parties, found against the company, as the breach had not been due to the applicant’s fault. Relying, in particular, on the Inspectorate Report, it rejected the Company Report. The Court of Appeal, sitting without the parties, quashed the first-instance decision and allowed the company’s claim. It found that the applicant’s fault was established by the Company Report. It apparently provided no comment on the Inspectorate Report or other documents from supervising authorities. On 18 February 2019 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, without providing additional details (the decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2019). Application no . 8424/20 Zakharevych From June 2003 to November 2012 the applicant was a defendant in a criminal investigation on suspicion of infliction of bodily harm, following an incident where the applicant had hit his neighbour in the course of a dispute. In November 2012 the investigation was terminated due to the absence of an offence as it was established that the applicant had acted in self-defence. In those proceedings the applicant had initially pleaded guilty. Domestic law provides for compensation where criminal proceedings are discontinued on such “rehabilitating” grounds but excludes compensation where the prosecution was due to a “false confession” (unless given under duress). The applicant lodged a civil claim seeking compensation of damage caused by the protracted prosecution. Courts rejected the claim holding that the initial guilty plea had constituted a false confession. They apparently did not comment on the applicant’s argument that the fact that he had hit his neighbour had never been contested, it was a question of legal classification and interpretation of which he, not initially legally represented, had not been aware and that, therefore, his pleading guilty could not be considered a “false confession”. Final decision: Supreme Court, 25 April 2019 (decision was sent to the applicant on 29 July 2019). Application no. 54233/20 Kudinenko The applicant has exclusive rights to use certain architectural design projects. In December 2016 she concluded an agreement with a certain K., under which the latter could use the designs on K.’s website.   The applicant argued that, after termination of the contract in December 2017, K. had failed to remove the projects from the website and the applicant instituted proceedings against K. seeking to stop violating her copyright, and also claiming damages. She provided an expert report establishing continued publication of the copyrighted material by K. The Court of Appeal amended a first-instance judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The first-instance court had found that the defendant’s unlawful conduct had not been proven. By contrast, the Court of Appeal substituted its own reasons for rejecting the applicant’s claim: it held that the applicant failed to prove the existence of “non-contractual relations” with K. There was apparently no explanation for what “non-contractual relations” constituted and how they could be proven in the situation in question. On 30 July 2020 the Supreme Court upheld that decision without providing more details. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and were their decisions “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2   others, §   185, 6   November 2018, with further references)?       APPENDIX No Case no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 55140/19 Polkovnikov v. Ukraine 10/10/2019 Mykola Vasylyovych POLKOVNIKOV 1956 Dnipro Ukrainian   2. 8424/20 Zakharevych v. Ukraine 27/01/2020 Mykhaylo Vasylyovych ZAKHAREVYCH 1964 Talne Ukrainian   3. 54233/20 Kudinenko v. Ukraine 06/11/2020 Olena Vasylivna KUDINENKO 1981 Kyiv Ukrainian Lyubomyr Petrovych DROZDOVSKYY