19107/13;15142/24;18253/24;21286/24;24320/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BELOBORODOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 19107/13 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Beloborodov 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 18 September 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 their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 7.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references). 8.  In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine, (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in the cases set out in the appended table. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  In application no. 15142/24, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 13.  The Court has examined it and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no. 15142/24 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 15142/24 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)  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; (b)  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 9 October 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]     19107/13 07/03/2013 Nikolay Aleksandrovich BELOBORODOV       12/11/2009 to 29/06/2011     18/10/2011 to 14/12/2012     10/10/2013 to 20/02/2014 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 18 day(s)     1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)     4 month(s) and 11 day(s)   Fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed. Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lack of review/lack of speediness of review of detention (Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011; Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 64-66, 6 November 2008): the applicant’s requests for release (i) submitted on 14/12/2011 – not examined; (ii) submitted on 30/05/2012 – examined on 02/07/2012; (iii); submitted on 10/08/2012 – not examined; (iv) submitted on 13/09/2012 – not examined.   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - during February-December 2012 the applicant was transported several times from his pre-trial detention facility to the courts. The applicant alleges that conditions of his detention during transportation and in the court cells were poor, namely he experienced overcrowding and lack of fresh air (see Yakovenko v.Ukraine, app. no. 15825/06, 25/10/2007, §§ 103-113; Koktysh v. Ukraine, app. no. 43707/07, 10/12/2009, §§ 23, 104-108). 2,500 -     15142/24 02/05/2024 Dmytro Viktorovych KATRENYUK   Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne 08/06/2018 to 27/03/2024 5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts (Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, § 183, 29 June 2021). Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 08/06/2018 - pending – 2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 3,900     18253/24 06/06/2024 Pavlo Anatoliyovych GLOBIN   Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne 03/09/2012 pending More than 12 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand. Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 03/09/2012 - pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021)     7,800     21286/24 13/07/2024 Pavlo Sergiyovych MATYUK   Voronyuk Kateryna Yuriyivna Rivne 02/09/2012 pending More than 12 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand. Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - 02/09/20212 - pending, 1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021) 7,800     24320/24 09/08/2024 Oleg Anatoliyovych SHAPKIN   Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv 05/12/2023 pending More than 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial. Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention: the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 06/12/2023, lodged on 07/12/2023, was examined with delays of 4 months and 3 days on 10/04/2024 (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) 2,600   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.