FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 71897/17 and 8 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG13 November 2025  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sokolov 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: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 denial of access to higher courts. The applicant in application no. 3159/19 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.THE LAWJOINDER 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 of the Convention6. The applicants complained principally of the denial of access to higher courts. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.7. The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to their civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against them determined by a court or tribunal. That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person’s access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; and Deweer v. Belgium, no. 6903/75, §§ 48-49, 27 February 1980). Furthermore, limitations will only be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they pursue a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued (see Célice v. France, no. 14166/09, § 33, 8 March 2012). These guarantees of effective access under Article 6 § 1 apply to appellate and cassation courts, where such courts exist (see, among other authorities, Maresti v. Croatia, no. 55759/07, § 33, 25 June 2009), including in administrative‑offence proceedings before appellate courts (see, for instance, Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, §§ 176-82, 18 June 2019).8. In the leading cases of Davran v. Turkey (no. 18342/03, §§ 31-47, 3 November 2009) and Maresti (cited above, §§ 34-43), the Court already found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the 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 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 limitations in question impaired the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court.10. In application no. 3159/19, the applicant submitted other complaints raising 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.

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