11922/24;15395/24;15722/24;17145/24;17885/24;18648/24;19000/24;20161/24;25079/24;30211/24;30417/24;33581/24;35842/24
WyrokETPCz2025-11-13ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1113JUD001192224
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy przewlekłość postępowania karnego i brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego naruszyły prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji oraz prawo do skutecznego środka odwoławczego z art. 13 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał powtórzył, że rozsądność długości postępowania musi być oceniana w świetle okoliczności sprawy, z uwzględnieniem złożoności sprawy, zachowania skarżących i władz oraz stawki sporu. Stwierdził, że w niniejszej sprawie długość postępowań karnych była nadmierna i nie spełniała wymogu „rozsądnego terminu”. Ponadto Trybunał uznał, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w odniesieniu do tych skarg, co stanowiło naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji.Stan faktyczny
Trzynaście skarg zostało wniesionych przez obywateli Ukrainy, którzy byli stronami postępowań karnych w swoim kraju. Skarżący zarzucali, że te postępowania trwały zbyt długo, w niektórych przypadkach przez ponad 16 lat, a część z nich nadal jest w toku. Ponadto twierdzili, że w prawie krajowym nie istniał skuteczny środek odwoławczy, który pozwoliłby im na zaskarżenie tej przewlekłości. Jeden ze skarżących zmarł w trakcie postępowania przed Trybunałem, a jego córka wystąpiła o kontynuowanie sprawy.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Decyduje o połączeniu skarg;
- Decyduje, że pani Suchkova, córka skarżącego w sprawie nr 25079/24, ma legitymację procesową w postępowaniu;
- Uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne;
- Stwierdza, że skargi te ujawniają naruszenie art. 6 § 1 i art. 13 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością postępowań karnych;
- Orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącym, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które zostaną przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego według kursu obowiązującego w dniu rozliczenia, wraz z odsetkami od upływu trzech miesięcy do dnia rozliczenia, naliczanymi według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania Europejskiego Banku Centralnego powiększonej o trzy punkty procentowe.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SHTEFAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 11922/24 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 November 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shtefan and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Andreas Zünd, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2025,
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.
THE LOCUS STANDI OF MR Yevgen Ivanovych SUCHKOV
6. As concerns the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 25079/24, the Court notes that the applicant died on 29 March 2025, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s daughter, Ms Tetyana Yevgenivna Suchkova, has requested to pursue the application on her father’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 83, 26 July 2007; Petr Korolev v. Russia, no. 38112/04, §§ 43-45, 21 October 2010; Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, §§ 73-75, 19 April 2016; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
12. 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
13. 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;
Decides that Ms Suchkova, the daughter of the applicant in application no. 25079/24, has locus standi in the proceedings;
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;
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 13 November 2025, 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]
11922/24
01/04/2024
Vladyslav Oleksandrovych SHTEFAN
Doroga-Vorobyeva Alisa Yuriyivna
Kyiv
07/06/2016
pending
More than 9 years and 3 months and 16 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,600
15395/24
07/05/2024
Gennadiy Yevstafyevych DANKO
Kazarnovskyy Oleksandr Lvovych
Odesa
30/03/2009
pending
More than 16 years and 5 months and 24 days
1 level of jurisdiction
7,800
15722/24
07/05/2024
Vitaliy Grygorovych BODACHEVSKYY
Kazarnovskyy Oleksandr Lvovych
Odesa
30/03/2009
pending
More than 16 years and 5 months and 24 day
1 level of jurisdiction
7,800
17145/24
02/05/2024
Zaza Volodymyrovych MOSESHVILI
Pustyntsev Andriy Vitaliyovych
Dnipro
24/02/2020
pending
More than 5 years and 7 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
17885/24
06/06/2024
Yaroslav Mykhaylovych STEPANCHAK
Matus
Taras Anatoliyovych
Ternopil
Samulyak
Mykhaylo Yuriyovych
Ternopil
23/03/2018
06/02/2024
5 years and 10 months and 15 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
18648/24
04/06/2024
Sergiy Mykolayovych BUSEL
04/09/2019
pending
More than 6 years and 19 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,500
19000/24
06/06/2024
Andriy Petrovych KYRYCHUK
Yelov
Vitaliy Andriyovych
Lutsk
23/05/2017
07/02/2024
6 years and 8 months and 16 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
20161/24
25/06/2024
Viktoriya Stanislavivna KALUGA
Samarets
Alina Mykolayivna
Kyiv
05/09/2014
pending
More than 11 years and 18 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
3,600
25079/24
17/08/2024
Yevgen
Ivanovych SUCHKOV Died in 2025
Suchkova Tetyana Yevgenivna
Kyiv
26/02/2014
29/04/2024
10 years and 2 months and 4 days
1 level of jurisdiction
4,200
30211/24
28/09/2024
Sergiy Oleksiyovych GONCHAROV
Shadrin Oleksandr Sergiyovych
Irpin
02/02/2017
28/05/2024
7 years and 3 months and 27 days
3 level of jurisdiction
30417/24
30/09/2024
Lyudmyla Sergiyivna BURLAKOVA
Poznyak Oleksandr Mykolayovych
Kyiv
07/09/2019
pending
More than 6 years and 16 days
1 level of jurisdiction
1,800
33581/24
31/10/2024
Sergiy
Ivanovych KRASNYANSKYY
Sobyna
Pavlo Mykolayovych
Okhtyrka
16/03/2018
pending
More than 7 years and 6 months and 7 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,000
35842/24
07/11/2024
Svitlana Oleksandrivna GORBUSHKO
Sobyna
Pavlo Mykolayovych
Okhtyrka
24/11/2008
28/05/2015
20/01/2017
29/12/2014
05/03/2016
pending
More than 15 years and 6 months and 16 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
6,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło