FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ALENGOZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 14500/25 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Alengoz 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 12 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. 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 FACTS3. 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 APPLICATIONS5. 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 CONVENTION6. 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 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑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 CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), 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 Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard; 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 2 April 2026, 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 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]
14500/25
24/04/2025
Denis
Viktorovych ALENGOZ
1986
Chuyeva Kateryna Oleksandrivna
Odesa
20/11/2016
pending
More than 9 years and 3 months
1 level of jurisdiction
3,600
18188/25
30/05/2025
Oleg
Olegovych MINKOVSKYY
1968
Ogorilko
Yuriy Volodymyrovych
Chervonograd
12/04/2017
pending
More than 8 years and 10 months and 8 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
18838/25
11/06/2025
Taras Yaroslavovych GRANAT
1982
16/09/2015
11/02/2025
9 years and 4 months and 27 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
20476/25
17/06/2025
Vitaliy Sergiyovych KIRIK
1986
Sydorchuk Kateryna Anatoliyivna
Mykolayiv
07/10/2022
pending
More than 3 years and 4 months and 13 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
The proceedings in the present case commenced on 16/11/2010. On 06/10/2022 the Court had already found violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6-1 in view of excessive length of criminal proceedings (Kryzhanovskyy and Others v. Ukraine, app. no. 16218/17 and others, 6 October 2022)
2,000
23310/25
17/07/2025
Maksym Viktorovych DROZDENKO
1975
11/03/2011
pending
More than 14 years and 11 months and 9 days
1 level of jurisdiction
7,200
23374/25
12/07/2025
Sergiy Grygorovych LYUBINETSKYY
1984
Nykytyuk Oleksandr Ivanovych
Vinnytsa
16/11/2009
pending
15 years and 3 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
3,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.