9200/20;6167/24;4945/25;7634/25;7750/25;8006/25;10133/25;10666/25;10771/25;10892/25;11960/25
WyrokETPCz2025-11-13ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1113JUD000920020
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy nadmierna długość postępowań cywilnych oraz brak skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym 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 uznał, że długość postępowań cywilnych w sprawach skarżących była nadmierna, nie znajdując żadnych faktów ani argumentów uzasadniających ogólną długość postępowań na poziomie krajowym. Odwołał się do ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego oceny rozsądnego terminu (kryteria złożoności sprawy, zachowania stron i władz, oraz stawki dla skarżących). Dodatkowo, Trybunał stwierdził, że skarżący nie mieli do dyspozycji skutecznego środka odwoławczego w odniesieniu do tych skarg, co stanowiło naruszenie art. 13 Konwencji.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, których lista znajduje się w załączniku, złożyli skargi przeciwko Ukrainie, zarzucając nadmierną długość postępowań cywilnych, w których byli stronami. Dodatkowo, skarżący twierdzili, że w prawie krajowym brakowało skutecznego środka odwoławczego, który pozwoliłby im na dochodzenie roszczeń w związku z przewlekłością. Jeden ze skarżących (nr 9200/20) podniósł również inne zarzuty, które jednak zostały uznane za niedopuszczalne.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał postanawia połączyć skargi. Trybunał uznaje skargi dotyczące nadmiernej długości postępowań cywilnych i braku skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym za dopuszczalne, a pozostałą część skargi nr 9200/20 za niedopuszczalną. Trybunał stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 i art. 13 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością postępowań cywilnych i brakiem skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym. Trybunał orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącym kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, powiększone o odsetki.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF SEMENOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 9200/20 and 10 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 Semenov 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 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 civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicant in application no. 9200/20 raised additional complaints under the Convention provisions.
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 ARTICLE 13 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 Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 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, 30 November 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 Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 9200/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined these complaints 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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. 9200/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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, 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible, and the remainder of application no. 9200/20 inadmissible;
Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;
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 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 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]
9200/20
08/02/2020
Vadym Vyacheslavovych SEMENOV
Sagaydak Andriy Vasylyovych
Dnipro
23/04/2015
29/03/2021
5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
6167/24
12/02/2024
Ivanna Pavlivna KYZYMCHUK
Yurovskyy Dmytro Borysovych
Kyiv
09/12/2020
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,200
4945/25
30/01/2025
Mykola Mykhaylovych YAVOROVENKO
02/10/2019
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 1 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
7634/25
04/03/2025
Maryana Vasylivna KONIZHAY
Konizhay Roman
Salzburg
16/07/2012
05/11/2024
12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,700
7750/25
24/02/2025
Yuriy Anatoliyovych MAKSYOM
Akhramovych Yan Igorovych
Kyiv
13/01/2022
20/02/2025
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Appeal proceedings initiated by the applicant following the decision of 20/02/2025, ended with the final decision of 30/05/2025
8006/25
07/03/2025
Oleksandr Pavlovych KORNIYETS
Svitlana Valeriyivna KORNIYETS Fedosin Artem Viktorovych
Puddletown
03/12/2012
05/12/2018
22/12/2016
24/10/2024
(the final decision was received by the applicants on 13/11/2024)
9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,400
10133/25
15/03/2025
Karina Sergiyivna ZABOLOTNA
Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych
Kyiv
17/12/2020
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,200
10666/25
20/03/2025
Oleg Oleksandrovych KOSTYUK
Roman Yaroslavovych SMETANSKYY
01/07/2003
27/09/2007
04/05/2012
25/05/2005
27/09/2007
04/05/2012
01/02/2007
06/11/2009
20/12/2024
01/02/2007
06/11/2009
20/12/2024
18 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
16 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,000
10771/25
25/03/2025
Volodymyr Yakovych BOYCHUK
06/06/2014
28/11/2024
10 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,400
10892/25
21/03/2025
Mykola Ivanovych KUROCHKA
Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych
Kyiv
15/12/2020
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,500
11960/25
01/04/2025
Leonid Mykolayovych SOKOLOVSKYY
Kozachuk Mykhaylo Vasylyovych
Kyiv
14/12/2021
30/04/2025
3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 17 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
[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