FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF ZLAGODA, TOV AND SLOBODENYUK v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 4735/22 and 4896/22)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG28 August 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zlagoda, TOV and Slobodenyuk v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Gilberto Felici, Diana Sârcu, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 3 July 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 applicants were represented by Mr Dmytro Viktorovych Yagunov, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.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 principally 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. In application no. 4735/22 the applicant company raised complaints about excessive length of more than twenty sets of proceedings. All of them lasted no less than four years and five months for one level of jurisdiction with the longest set of proceedings of more than six years and three months (see appended table).10. 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.11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.12. In application no. 4735/22, the applicant company also raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about excessive length of four sets of proceedings (proceedings nos. 500/3032/18, 500/3078/18, 500/3079/18 and 500/3087/18). They all lasted in total between three years and eleven months and four years and seven months before three levels of jurisdiction.14. 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. 4735/22 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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.

Outcome for Article 6: violation