29911/24;30238/24

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MUDRAK AND RASKIN v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 29911/24 and 30238/24 – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 November 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mudrak and Raskin 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 6 November 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 applicants were represented by Mr S. Rybiy, a lawyer practising in Dnipro, Ukraine. 3.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.  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 7.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 8.  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). 9.  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. 10.  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 excessively unreasonable. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  The 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. 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, 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 applications admissible; 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 27 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   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]     29911/24 06/10/2024 Volodymyr Yuriyovych MUDRAK   11/01/2017 to 11/07/2024 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   collective detention orders   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015) 3,000     30238/24 04/10/2024 Yevgen Oleksandrovych RASKIN   14/01/2017 to 14/07/2024 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   collective detention orders   fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015) 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.