FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ONISHCHENKO v. UKRAINE(Application no. 33188/17)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG20 March 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Onishchenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 27 February 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 April 2017.2. The applicant was represented by Mr M. O. Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.THE FACTS4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that he had no effective remedy in this connection. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.6. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).7. 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.8. 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.9. The Court further notes that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.10. 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 sum indicated in the appended table.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation