FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF VYKHOR v. UKRAINE(Application no. 36618/14)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG22 January 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Vykhor v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 36618/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 April 2014 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Pavlo Oleksandrovych Vykhor (“the applicant”), who was born in 1978 and lives in Kostyantynivka;the decision to give notice of the complaints summarised in paragraph 1 below to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Sokorenko, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints, under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, that covert investigative (operative) measures (негласні слідчі (розшукові) дії) used against him were incompatible with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence, that he lacked effective remedies in respect of that complaint, and that criminal proceedings initiated against him were excessively long.2. The applicant, a lawyer, is a defendant in criminal proceedings initiated in May 2013, which, according to the latest information from the parties, are still ongoing. He has been charged with defrauding V.O., his client, by inciting him to hand over money allegedly demanded by judicial and police authorities to ensure favourable treatment of V.O.’s criminal case.3. On 23 May 2013 an investigating judge of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, relying in particular on Articles 246-248 and 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in two similarly-worded orders, gave authorisation to tap the applicant’s two mobile telephones and carry out audio and video monitoring respectively. The investigating judge stated, without providing additional details, that there were sufficient grounds to believe that, in the course of covert investigative (operative) measures, information could be obtained that could be of fundamental importance for the prevention, early detection and cessation of criminal offences. The judge also stated that the police had argued, in applying for authorisation that it would not be possible to obtain that information by any other means.4. On 31 May 2013 a prosecutor from the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office authorised the police to organise a “controlled transaction” (that is to say, to provide V.O. with marked bills to hand over to the applicant).5. By November 2013 the applicant had learned that key evidence in his case had been obtained by way of those covert investigative (operative) measures. In addition to that, the prosecution’s file included transcripts of the applicant’s telephone conversations and a meeting with V.O. recorded by law-enforcement authorities pursuant to authorisations given by the investigating judge of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal on 23 May 2013 to tap the applicant’s mobile telephones and to carry out his audio- and video‑monitoring. Copies of those authorisations were also included in the file.6. On 28 February 2014 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court declined to consider appeals lodged by the applicant against the investigating judge’s authorisations of 23 May 2013, finding that they were not subject to appeal.7. On numerous occasions the applicant lodged various criminal, disciplinary and civil complaints challenging the covert measures used against him. He alleged, in particular, that the authorisations of 23 May 2013 had been given unlawfully without an assessment of whether there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, and that the disputed measures had constituted unlawful and disproportionate interference with the confidentiality of his private communications.8. In March 2017 the applicant also lodged an application with the Kostyantynivka City District Court seeking the exclusion from his criminal file of evidence obtained by way of the disputed measures.9. According to the parties’ latest submissions, as of January 2024 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were at the trial stage and no decision concerning his complaints relating to the covert measures in question had yet been taken.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTthe scope of the case10. In his observations in response to those of the Government, the applicant reiterated a number of complaints he had raised under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention when lodging the application.11. The Court notes that the Vice-President of the Section, sitting in a single-judge formation, had already declared those complaints inadmissible on 3 November 2021, upon communication of part of the application to the Government. The Court notes that the decision by which complaints were declared inadmissible is final (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court); the Court cannot therefore re-examine those complaints (see Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria, nos. 46564/15 and 68140/16, § 115, 30 August 2022).12. The Court further notes that new complaints mentioned in the applicant’s observations – concerning, essentially, the attachment of his property within the framework of the criminal proceedings against him and its destruction by a missile in 2022 – fall outside the initial scope of the present case and cannot therefore be taken up within its framework (see O.M. and D.S. v. Ukraine, no. 18603/12, § 65, 15 September 2022).13.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: violation