FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MOGYLA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 1129/18 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG26 February 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Mogyla 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 5 February 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 Under Article 6 of the Convention that their access to a court had been restricted. In application no. 1129/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.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 of the Convention6. The applicants complained principally of the limitations on access to a court. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.7. The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court – that is the right to institute proceedings before the courts in civil matters – constitutes an element which is inherent in the right set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual 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; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017).8. In the leading cases of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001‑VI); Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02, §§ 31-36, 7 June 2007); Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, §§ 93-96, 19 June 2007); and Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008), 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 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. In application no. 1129/18, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised 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.

Outcome for Article 6: violation