29381/16;56656/21;29743/24;16463/25;16559/25;17186/25;18169/25;20337/25;20479/25;22345/25;25138/25;25277/25;29001/25;29663/25

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MISHIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 29381/16 and 13 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mishin 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 4 June 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 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.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 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, among many other authorities, Pélissierand Sassi v.France [GC], no.25444/94, §67, ECHR1999‑II, and Frydlender v.France [GC], no.30979/96, §43, ECHR2000‑VII). 8.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. 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 Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18June2009), 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; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article6 § 1 and Article13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect; 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 25 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 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] 29381/16 14/05/2016 Oleksiy Ivanovych MISHIN Golovnya Stanislav Dmytrovych Chornobay 27/08/2007 18/12/2015 year(s) and 3month(s) and 22day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 56656/21 15/11/2021 Rustam Narkuliyevych ACHILOV Kushnir Valeriy Volodymyrovych Dnipro 03/12/2018 pending More than 7year(s) and 5month(s) and 17day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400 29743/24 26/09/2024 Dmytro Dmytrovych LELYK Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig 26/04/2019 28/05/2024 year(s) and 1month(s) and 3 day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 1,500 16463/25 22/05/2025 Anton Oleksandrovych LEVCHENKO 16/04/2014 23/01/2025 year(s) and 9month(s) and 8day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 3,400 16559/25 22/05/2025 Taras Gennadiyovych KRAVETS 16/04/2014 23/01/2025 year(s) and 9month(s) and 8day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 3,400 17186/25 22/05/2025 Gennadiy Volodymyrovych TAMBOVTSEV 16/04/2014 23/01/2025 year(s) and 9month(s) and 8day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 3,400 18169/25 06/06/2025 Viktor Mykhaylovych TRACH Svidenko Kostyantyn Borysovych Kyiv 27/11/2013 pending More than 12 year(s) and 5month(s) and 23day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 4,200 20337/25 19/06/2025 Ruslana Valeriyivna FROLOVA Shugalevych Igor Vasylyovych Odesa 06/10/2015 pending More than 10 year(s) and 7month(s) and 14day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 4,800 20479/25 26/06/2025 Sergiy Mykolayovcyh YAVORSKYY Poznyak Oleksandr Mykolayovych Kyiv 13/02/2015 pending More than 11 year(s) and 3month(s) and 7 day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 3,600 22345/25 11/07/2025 Viktor Volodymyrovych SIVKOV Yolkin Andriy Valeriyovych Kryvyy Rig 17/07/2017 pending More than 8year(s) and 10month(s) and 3 day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400 25138/25 28/07/2025 Vladyslav Viktorovych GARKAVYY Pogibko Oleksandr Olegovych Odesa 26/09/2016 pending More than 9year(s) and 7month(s) and 24day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 2,400 25277/25 22/06/2025 Volodymyr Viktorovych KONDRATENKO 07/07/2023 Pending The applicant was arrested on 04/03/2018 on suspicion of having committed a crime. In the case Ganysh and Others v. Ukraine (applications nos.36314/15 and 2others, 6July 2023), the Court has already found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in view of the excessive length of same set of the criminal proceedings. More than 2year(s) and 10month(s) and 13day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 29001/25 29/08/2025 Sergiy Yuriyovych CHEKMARYOV Levkov Vitaliy Mykolayovych Kharkiv 28/09/2017 08/05/2025 7year(s)and 7 month(s) and 11day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 1,200 29663/25 08/09/2025 Sergiy Volodymyrovych TULYULYA Sydorchuk Kateryna Anatoliyivna Mykolayiv 26/10/2015 pending More than 10 year(s) and 6month(s) and 24day(s) level(s) of jurisdiction 4,800 [1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.