CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7749/23 Oleksandr Vasylyovych KRASNIKOV against Ukraine lodged on 3 February 2023 communicated on 23 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns pending criminal proceedings arising from bodily injuries of medium severity sustained by the applicant in 2007, following his fall from an unlit and unfenced railway bridge approximately ten metres high. According to the applicant, the train stopped on the bridge near a railway station and, after he had disembarked, he fell into a hole located in front of the train doors. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the length of the criminal proceedings has been excessive, which may result in those responsible avoiding punishment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention (see Kalender v. Turkey , no.   4314/02, §§   51-58, 15   December 2009; Prilutskiy v. Ukraine , no.   40429/08, §§   42-46, 26   February 2015; and Mikhno v. Ukraine , no.   32514/12, §§   131-134, 1   September 2016)? 2.     Was the length of consideration of the applicant’s civil claim lodged within criminal proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Molchanova v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   4465/18, §§   23-28, 26   September 2023)? 3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, as required by its Article   13?