20890/16;19185/25;29242/25;30675/25;32185/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TAMAKULOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 20890/16 and 4 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tamakulova and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Vahe Grigoryan, Sébastien Biancheri, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article34 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 (“theGovernment”) 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 civil 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE6 § 1 ANDARTICLE13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article6 § 1 and Article13 of the Convention. 7.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 Frydlender v.France [GC], no.30979/96, §43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.In the leading case of Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02, 30November 2006), 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 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. 10.The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints. 11.These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article6 § 1 and of Article13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Karnaushenko, cited above, §§ 70 and 75), 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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article6 § 1 and Article13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law; 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 11 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya MaradudinaAndreas Zünd Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil 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 non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] 20890/16 06/04/2016 Valentyna Oleksiyivna TAMAKULOVA 01/10/2007 21/12/2015 year(s) and 2month(s) and 21day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction 19185/25 13/06/2025 Andriy Anatoliyovych VORONKO Proceedings no. 1 27/10/2016 Proceedings no. 2 03/01/2021 Proceedings no. 3 12/03/2021 Proceedings no. 1 23/04/2025 Proceedings no. 2 pending Proceedings no. 3 pending Proceedings no. 1 8 year(s) and 5month(s) and 28 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction Proceedings no. 2 More than 5year(s) and 3month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction Proceedings no. 3 More than 5year(s) and 1month(s) and 17 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 3,000 29242/25 05/09/2025 Volodymyr Mykolayovych YASINSKYY Yurovskyy Dmytro Borysovych Kyiv 04/10/2021 pending More than 4year(s) and 6month(s) and 25 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200 30675/25 25/09/2025 Gennadiy Anatoliyovych KRAVCHUK Boychenyuk Ivan Vasylyovych Kyiv 08/08/2018 15/05/2025 (received by the applicant on 26/05/2025) 6 year(s) and 9month(s) and 8day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 32185/25 04/10/2025 Petro Mykolayovych KLYMENKO Blyakharska Yuliya Oleksandrivna Dnipro 06/03/2017 04/06/2025 year(s) and 3month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200 [1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.